Professional Documents
Culture Documents
4.1 Introduction
Statistician John Tukey (1962)1 defined data analysis as: "Procedures for
analyzing data, techniques for interpreting the results of such procedures, ways of
planning the gathering of data to make its analysis easier, more precise or more
accurate, and all the machinery and results of (mathematical) statistics which apply
to analyzing data." (John Tukey-The Future of Data Analysis-July 1962 1).
Data analysis is the process of bringing order, structure and meaning to the
mass of collected data. It is a messy, ambiguous, time consuming, creative, and
fascinating process. It does not proceed in a linear fashion; it is not neat. Qualitative
data analysis is a search for general statements about relationships among categories
of data (Marshall & Rossman, 1990:1112). Hitchcock and Hughes (1995:295)3 further
added to this by saying that: "…the ways in which the researcher moves from a
description of what is the case to an explanation of why what is the case is the case."
In simpler terms, analysis of data is a process of inspecting, cleaning, transforming,
and modeling data with the motive of discovering useful information, suggesting
conclusions, and supporting decision-making. The purpose of analyzing data is to
obtain usable and useful information. The analysis, may:
• Describe and summarize the data
• Identify relationships between variables
• Compare variables
• Identify the difference between variables
• Forecast outcomes
Data interpretation is the process of making sense of numerical data that has
been collected, analyzed, and presented. Statistical analysis is a common technique
to assess the numerical data, and inferential statistics is the technique to analyze
and interpret data to make predictions.
Data Analysis and Interpretation 2
In the present research study, primary data has been collected with the help
of structured questionnaire. Later, the data from questionnaire has been edited,
coded and tabulated for further statistical analysis.
4.2 Demographics
The respondents of the study were retail employees from organized retail
sector from different cities of India. A total of 302 retail employees were
administered the questionnaire on the employee engagement. Demographics of the
study is below here:
Age (years) 20 years and below 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 Above
Number 32 62 58 67 71 12
Job Experience Less than a year 1-3 4-6 7-10 11-15 Above
(years)
Number 32 62 58 67 71 12
IT 16 Operations 16
Data Analysis and Interpretation 3
The reliability of this study was tested by using SPSS 21 software. The
accepted lower value of Cronbach’s alpha is 0.7 (Kline, 20055; Nunnally, &
Bernstein, 19788). Cronbach’s alpha values of set of items for employee engagement
and engagement determinants are greater than 0.7. Hence, Cronbach’s alpha value
for all items shows good reliability. All values of corrected item total correlation
exhibits value more than 0.05, therefore shows good value and at this stage of
analysis and there is no need to delete any item. The results are shown in table 4.2.
Data Analysis and Interpretation 4
Q1 .653 .893
Q2 .661 .893
Q3 .594 .896
Q4 .569 .897
Q5 .591 .896
Q6 .633 .894
Gallup Q12 .902
Q7 .595 .896
Q8 .642 .894
Q9 .580 .897
validity, where whether “measures that are theoretically to be unrelated are, in fact,
unrelated”.
4.4.1 Exploratory Factor Analysis
The first step in the study is to assess the validity by measuring convergent
validity of measures of construct by performing factor analysis. Factor analysis is a
method to carry inter-correlated variables all together under more general, underlying
variables, in other words, an attempt to elucidate the variance in the observed
variables in relations to underlying latent factors (Habing, 200317). In simpler terms,
factor analysis is a statistical technique to describe variability among observed,
correlated variables in terms of a potentially lower number of unobserved variables
called as factors.
For factor analysis, we did an exploratory factor analysis with an aim to
explore or identify the underlying relationships among measured variables.
Exploratory factor analysis is based on the common factor model. Within the
common factor model, a function of common factors, unique factors, and errors of
measurements expresses measured variables (Norris & Lecavalier, 200918).
The varimax orthogonal rotation approach was used while performing PCA
in present research work to deliver easier factor structure to every data set.
According to Hair (2010)21, the varimax rotation approach provides a clear view of
factors, and resulted factor pattern by varimax rotation is more invariant in
comparison to other approaches. In addition, rotation is desirable because it simplifies
the factor structure, it reformulates the factors for the sharper segregations to provide
meanings to the factors, and its generally tough to define whether the unrotated
factors are meaningful (Hair, 2010)21.
The significance of factor loadings are used to decide the number of factors
retained after PCA. The absolute value of 0.50 of factor loading is the condition to
decide the significance of factors. Therefore, items in the questionnaire instrument
were deleted that correlate less than 0.50 because less than 25% variance was
accounted to them and they were interpreting the structure at the minimal level only.
The loadings at 0.50 or above are practically significant (Hair, 2010 21) and are kept
in study for further analysis. Thus, after conducting the PCA, the 38 initial items in
Data Analysis and Interpretation 10
Further, to comprehend the results, a scree plot was drawn to understand the
factors which would majorly affect the engagement so that inferences and
suggestions could be drawn out of the research work. As can be seen from the figure
4.1 of the scree plot, from the slop of the curve seven factors were leveled out.
Total seven factors were extracted, as per the variance caused by them and
their loadings are presented in the table 4.6 along with the name of each factor.
Data Analysis and Interpretation 16
Data Analysis and Interpretation 17
Eigen Value
S.
Factor Name % Cumulative Variance Variables Converged Loadings
No. Total
Variance (%)
Supervisor and employee are well suited for each other. .672
Supervisor considers suggestion for change. .628
2. Work 5.270 13.869 31.938 Feel like an important team member. .825
Environment
Work environment at company is good. .818
Eigen Value
S.
Factor Name % Cumulative Variance Variables Converged Loadings
No. Total
Variance (%)
Eigen Value
S.
Factor Name % Cumulative Variance Variables Converged Loadings
No. Total
Variance (%)
personal or family matter.
Ability to modify schedule, when an unexpected personal or family matter
.672
arises.
Transformational Supervisor treats staff as individuals, supports and encourages development. .614
7. 1.638 4.311 68.893
Leadership Supervisor fosters trust, involvement and cooperation among team members. .549
Data Analysis and Interpretation
In the present research study, to further confirm the factors obtained after PCA,
confirmatory factor analysis, with the help of SPSS Amos 22 software was performed.
Confirmatory factor analysis is a distinct form of factor analysis, primarily used in social research
(Kline, 201123). The objective of confirmatory factor analysis is to measure that the data fit the
hypothesized measurement model or not. In other words, confirmatory factor analysis is a
statistical technique, which allows researcher to test the hypothesis that a relationship among the
observed variables and their basic latent constructs exists or not (Suhr, 200624). Structural
equation modelling’s software was used for performing CFA. For this purpose, CFA model was
prepared. CFA models are often referred as 'the measurement model' in the situation of structural
equation model, while the relation of latent variables with each other (that are shown with
directed arrows) are called 'the structural model'. The CFA model for the study is shown in figure
4.2.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
First, the CFA model was built with 7 latent constructs and 38 measures to analyze that
models fits the data well or not. In the second step, the items with more standardized residual
Data Analysis and Interpretation
covariance values were removed as these were not significantly contributing in increasing the
fitness of the model. These items were SUP7, SUP8, SUP9, SUP10, COM5, COM6, PB4, PB5,
TS4 and TS5. Out of these PB4, PB5, TS4 and TS5 were the same items, loaded with lower
values in the table 4.3 resulted after exploratory factor analysis by the extraction method of PCA.
Further, to increase the model fitness and to minimize the error, the highly loaded error values of
same construct were combined. These are depicted in CFA model figure 4.2.
The final CFA model comes up with 7 latent constructs and 28 items. To evaluate model
fit absolute fit indices were used (McDonald & Ho 200225), these absolute fit indices include,
however they were not limited to, the Chi-Squared test, GFI (Goodness of Fit Index with cutoff
value of .9), AGFI (Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index with cutoff value of .9), RMSEA (Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation with value ≤ .06), CFI (Comparative Fit Index with cutoff value
of .9), and RMR (Root Mean Square residual with value ≤ .05) (Baumgartner & Homburg,
199626; Hooper, Coughlan & Mullen 200827; Hu & Bentler, 199928; Suhr, 200624).
The confirmatory factor analysis produced good results, such that items of the constructs
achieved discriminant validity, shown in table 4.7. The statistics for the goodness-of-fit of the
model are as follows: χ2 (478.884) with DF = 322, p = .000, GFI = .902, AGFI = .877, RMSEA =
.040, CFI = .974, RMR = .041. Table 4.8 brings confirmatory factor analysis results and displays
the standardized regression weights, variance errors and t-values with mean and standard
deviation of individual items and composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE)
calculated from CFA results. Composite Reliability, we have discussed earlier in reliability
section. AVE is the variance in the indicators explained by the common factor or in another
word, represents the ratio of the total variance due to latent variable. AVE value varies from 0 to
1 and above 0.5 is treated an indication of good convergent validity and that was attained in this
research work.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Correlationsb
Fat. Mean SD SUP WE COM APP PB TS TL
.371**
WE 3.06 .985 .000 0.85
.466** .544**
COM 3.05 .815 .000 .000 0.73
1. Supervisor Role (6.866) - This is the most important determinant of the employee
engagement emerged out after the analysis of factors in the research with a total variance
of 18%. The major elements of this factor include the feedback by supervisor (.796),
supervisor understands problems and needs (.789), supervisor is flexible to accomplish
job objectives (.789), supervisor supports ideas and ways of getting things done (.780),
supervisor considers goal and values (.758), and supervisor gives sufficient information
about work goals (.712). Supervisor’s support, feedback and a good relation is a link to
greater employee motivation and desire to be engaged in the work place (Lee, 201232;
Menguc, Auh, Fisher & Haddad, 201333; Saks, 200634; Shuck & Wollard 201035).
2. Work Environment (5.270) - This is the second most important determinant of the
employee engagement emerged out after the analysis of factors in the research with a
total variance of 13.86%. Top contributing measures in this factor include, feels like an
important team member (.825), work environment is good (.818), treated with respect
(.808), and top management commits resources (.804). Other researchers also recognized
work environment as criteria to engage and retain employees (Gill, 201236; Kennedy &
Daim 201037; Lee, 201233).
3. Communication (3.965) - This is the third most important determinant of the employee
engagement emerged out after the analysis of factors in the research with a total variance
of 10.43%. Top contributing measures in this factor include, feedback as important part
of communication (.750), can tell supervisor without getting into trouble (.710), and clear
company vision for the future (.687). Similar results echoed in other studies also of Gill,
(2012)36 and Kennedy et al., (2010)37. A clear dialog between employees and supervisor
is a way to engage them.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
4. Appraisal Process (3.150) - This is the fourth most important determinant of the
employee engagement emerged out after the analysis of factors in the research with a
total variance of 8.29%. The key measures for this factor are: previous employee surveys
concerns are addressed well (.815), opportunities for advancement (.799), and supervisor
has supported development plan (.718). Gill (2012)36 also confirmed same in his study on
a service firm.
5. Pay and Benefits (2.710) - This came out as the fifth determinant of the employee
engagement after the analysis of factors in the research with a total variance of 7.13%.
The key measures of the factor are, good opportunities for salary (.791), benefits are
competitive (.756), and total compensation is competitive (.740). Similar studies by Gill
(2012)36 and Kennedy et al., (2010)37 supported the criteria.
6. Time Scheduling (2.579) - This came out as the sixth determinant of the employee
engagement after the analysis of factors in the research with a total variance of 6.78%.
The key measures of the factor are, ability to change the schedule when personal work to
take care (.714), people are willing to swap hours (.685), and ability to modify schedule
when unexpected work comes (.672). James, McKechine & Swanberg, (2011)38 in his
study on age diversified retail employees also used and supported that schedule satisfaction
is one of the important determinant for retail employees engagement.
7. Transformational Leadership (1.638) - This came out as the last determinant of the
employee engagement after the analysis of factors in the research with a total variance of
4.31%. The key measures of the factor are, supervisor supports staff, treats well and
encourages development (.614), and supervisor fosters trust, involvement and
cooperation among team members (.549). Wefald, (2008)39 in his research depicted the
relation between transformational leadership and engagement.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
• “Engaged employees who know the desired expectations for their role so they can meet
and exceed them”.40
• “Not-engaged employees who tend to concentrate on tasks rather than the goals and
outcomes they are expected to accomplish.”40
• “Actively disengaged employees are the "cave dwellers." They are consistently against
Virtually Everything."40
Not-engaged 151 50
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Actively Disengaged 85 28
Independent samples test results table depicts results of two tests – first, Levene’s Test
for Equality of Variances and second, t-test for Equality of Means. The Levene’s test shows that
Data Analysis and Interpretation
to analyze the equality of the means which statistic has to consider. It tests the null hypothesis, a
small value or a big value of significance related with Levene’s test demonstrates that two
groups have unequal variance or equal variance, respectively.
Front-end and back-end employees do not have much in common as front-end employees
handle store operations and directly interacts with customers, whereas, back-end employees are
responsible to provide support to front-end staff members in all areas e.g. human resources,
marketing, finance, IT, supply chain etc. To compare the engagement level of the retail
employees working in the front and back end department of retail company, the mean score of
each retail employee was taken and an independent sample t-test was applied. Below table
represents the descriptive statistics for the two groups.
1 Front-End 161
2 Back-End 141
The table 4.12 displays group statistics, the sample size, mean, standard deviation, and
standard error for both groups. On average, the engagement of retail employees in both front-end
and back-end looked similar in the comparison groups, and they vary little around their average.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Independent sample t-test was applied. The significance value of the Levene’s test
statistic was 0.010 (less than .05). A small value of significance of Levene’s test indicates that
two groups have unequal variances.
The t-test result displays t statistic of -2.596 with 275.178 degrees of freedom. The
corresponding, 2-tailed ρ-value was 0.010, which was less than 0.05. Hence, the null hypothesis
was rejected at 5% significance level. It signified that there was a statistically significant
variance in employee engagement for front-end and back-end employees. Since, group statistics
box revealed that the mean for the back-end employees was greater than the mean for the front-
end employees so, it could be concluded that back-end employees were relatively more engaged
than front-end employees. Below graph delivers a one point location to compare the means for
front-end and back-end employees with statistically significant values.
To compare the engagement level of the retail employees having different years of job
experience, three groups were made of different years of job experience. Each group was
compared and analyzed with other group. The mean score of each retail employee was taken and
an independent sample t-test was applied. Descriptive statistics of three group are shown in table
below:
The table 4.15 displays group statistics, the sample size, mean, standard deviation, and
standard error for both groups. Engagement level of retail employees in two different job
experience groups varies, thus the groups vary around their average.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Independent sample t-test was applied. The significance value of the Levene’s test
statistic was 0.092 (more than .05). A big value of significance of Levene’s test indicates that
two groups have equal variances.
The t-test result displays t statistic of -7.367 with 217 degrees of freedom. The
corresponding, 2-tailed ρ-value was 0.000, which is less than 0.05. It signifies that there was a
statistically significant variance in employee engagement for emerging adults and settling-in
adults. Since group statistics box revealed that the mean for job experience for emerging adults
was smaller than the mean for the settling-in adults so, it could be concluded that employees with
more job experience were relatively more engaged than lesser job experience employees.
The table 4.17 displays group statistics, the sample size, mean, standard deviation, and
standard error for both groups. Engagement level of retail employees in two different job
experience groups varies, thus the groups vary around their average.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Independent sample t-test was applied. The significance value of the Levene’s test
statistic was 0.032 (less than .05). A smaller value of significance of Levene’s test indicates that
two groups have unequal variances.
The t-test result displays t statistic of -8.081 with 144.383 degrees of freedom. The
corresponding, 2-tailed ρ-value was 0.000, which was less than 0.05. It signifies that there was a
statistically significant variance in employee engagement for settling-in adults and adults with
prime-working years of job experience. Since group statistics box revealed that the mean for
settling-in adults was smaller than the mean for adults with prime-working years of job
experience employees so, it could be concluded that employees with more job experience were
relatively more engaged than lesser job experience employees.
The table 4.19 displays group statistics, the sample size, mean, standard deviation, and
standard error for both groups. Engagement level of retail employees in two different job
experience groups varies significantly, thus the groups vary largely around their average.
Table 4.20 Test Results of Group 1 & 3 (Job Experience)
Levene's Test for t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances
Motivation F Sig. T Df Sig. Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence
(2-tailed) diff. diff. Interval of the
Difference
Lower Upper
Equal variances .056 .813 12.471 175 .000 14.313 1.148 12.048 16.578
assumed
Equal variances 12.542 174.796 .000 14.313 1.141 12.060 16.565
not assumed
Independent sample t-test was applied. The significance value of the Levene’s test
statistic was 0.813 (more than .05). A higher value of significance of Levene’s test indicates that
two groups have equal variances.
The t-test result displays t statistic of 12.471 with 175 degrees of freedom. The
corresponding, 2-tailed ρ-value was 0.000, which was less than 0.05. It signifies that there was a
statistically significant difference in employee engagement for emerging adults and adults with
prime-working years of job experience. Since group statistics box revealed that the mean for
emerging adults was smaller than the prime-working years of job experience employees so, it
could be concluded that employees with more job experience were relatively more engaged than
lesser job experience employees.
Hence, the null hypothesis was rejected at the 5% significance level. Below graph
delivers a one point location to compare the means for different job experience groups with
statistically significant values.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
To compare the engagement level of the retail employees having different age, three
groups were made of different years of age. Each group is compared and analyzed with other
group. The mean score of each retail employee was taken and an independent sample t-test was
applied. Descriptive statistics of three group are shown in table below:
The table 4.22 displays group statistics, the sample size, mean, standard deviation, and
standard error for both groups. Engagement level of retail employees in two different job
experience groups varies, thus the groups vary around their average.
Independent sample t-test was applied. The significance value of the Levene’s test
statistic was 0.272 (more than .05). A higher value of significance of Levene’s test indicates that
two groups have equal variances.
The t-test result displays t statistic of -6.219 with 217 degrees of freedom. The
corresponding, 2-tailed ρ-value was 0.000, which was less than 0.05. It signifies that there was a
statistically significant variance in employee engagement for emerging adults and settling-in
adults. Since group statistics box revealed that the mean for emerging adults was smaller than the
Data Analysis and Interpretation
mean for settling-in adults so, it could be concluded that employees with more age are relatively
more engaged than younger employees.
The table 4.24 displays group statistics, the sample size, mean, standard deviation, and
standard error for both groups. Engagement level of retail employees in two different job
experience groups varies, thus the groups vary little around their average.
Independent sample t-test was applied. The significance value of the Levene’s test
statistic was 0.104 (more than .05). A higher value of significance of Levene’s test indicates that
two groups have equal variances.
The t-test result displays t statistic of -8.152 with 206 degrees of freedom. The
corresponding, 2-tailed ρ-value was 0.000, which was less than 0.05. It signifies that there was a
statistically significant variance in employee engagement for settling-in adults and adults with
prime-working years. Since group statistics box revealed that the mean for settling-in adults was
Data Analysis and Interpretation
smaller than the mean for adults with prime-working years so, it could be concluded that
employees with more age are relatively more engaged than younger employees.
The table 4.26 displays group statistics, the sample size, mean, standard deviation, and
standard error for both groups. Engagement level of retail employees in two different job
experience groups varies significantly, thus the groups vary largely around their average.
Independent sample t-test was applied. The significance value of the Levene’s test
statistic was 0.700 (more than .05). A higher value of significance of Levene’s test indicates that
two groups have equal variances.
The t-test result displays t statistic of -11.924 with 175 degrees of freedom. The
corresponding, 2-tailed ρ-value was 0.000, which was less than 0.05. It signifies that there was a
statistically significant variance in employee engagement for emerging adults and adults with
prime-working years. Since group statistics box revealed that the mean for emerging adults was
Data Analysis and Interpretation
smaller than the mean for adults with prime-working years so, it could be concluded that
employees with more age are relatively more engaged than younger employees.
Hence, the null hypothesis was rejected at the 5% significance level. Below graph
delivers a one point location to compare the means for different age groups with statistically
significant values.
REFERENCES
3. Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D. (1995). Research and the teacher: A qualitative
introduction to school-based research. Psychology Press.
4. Bruton, A., Conway, J. H., & Holgate, S. T. (2000). Reliability: what is it, and how is it
measured?. Physiotherapy, 86(2), 94-99.
5. Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York:
Guilford.
6. Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1988). Focused tests of significance and effect size
estimation in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 35(2), 203.
7. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L.P. (1991). Measurement, Design and Analysis: An
Integrated Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
9. Werts, C. E., Linn, R. L., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1974). Intraclass reliability estimates:
Testing structural assumptions. Educational and Psychological measurement, 34(1), 25-
33.
10. Chin, W. W. (1998) "Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling," MIS
Quarterly (22)1, March, pp. vii-xvi.
11. Fornell, C. and D. Larcker (1981) "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research (18)1,
pp. 39-50.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
12. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3) McGraw-Hill. New
York.
13. Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2007). Statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont,
CA: Thompson Learning.Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. 1988……pg 34
14. Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall Regents.
15. Cronbach, L. J.; Meehl, P.E. (1955). "Construct Validity in Psychological Tests".
Psychological Bulletin 52 (4):281302. doi:10.1037/h0040957. PMID 13245896.
18. Norris, M., & Lecavalier, L. (2010). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in
developmental disability psychological research. Journal of autism and developmental
disorders, 40(1), 8-20.
22. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological bulletin, 56(2), 81.
23. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford
press.
24. Suhr, D. D. (2006). Exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis? (pp. 200-231). Cary:
SAS Institute.
25. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural
equation analyses. Psychological methods, 7(1), 64.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
26. Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in
marketing and consumer research: a review. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 13(2), 139-161.
27. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines
for determining model fit. Articles, 2.
28. 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.
29. Chin, W. W. (1998) "Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling," MIS
Quarterly (22)1, March, pp. vii-xvi.
30. Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and
regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the association for
information systems, 4(1), 7.
31. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal
of the academy of marketing science, 16(1), 74-94.
32. Lee, J. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement: empirical study
of hotel employees and managers (Doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University).
33. Menguc, B., Auh, S., Fisher, M., & Haddad, A. (2013). To be engaged or not to be
engaged: The antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement. Journal of
business research, 66(11), 2163-2170.
35. Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010). Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of
the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89-110.
37. Kennedy, E., & Daim, T. U. (2010). A strategy to assist management in workforce
engagement and employee retention in the high tech engineering
environment. Evaluation and program planning, 33(4), 468-476.
38. James, J. B., McKechnie, S., & Swanberg, J. (2011). Predicting employee engagement in
41. Crabtree, S. (2004). Getting personal in the workplace. Gallup Management Journal.
Retrieved from http://gmj.gallup.com/content/11956/Getting-Personal-Workplace.aspx
42. Taylor, I. (2009). Do engaged employees make for profitable companys? Try the Gallup
Q12 [Web log post]. Retrieved from QuestionPro Blog:
http://blog.questionpro.com/2009/12/14/do-engaged-employees-make-forprofi table-
companys-try-the-gallup-q12/