Human resource management practices and employee engagement: the moderating effect of supervisory role

Figures & data

Table 1. Key HRM practices.

References	RS	TD	PA	IR	EP	JS	CA	WC	ES	PP	COM
Boselie et al. (2019)	√	√	√								√
Aktar and Pangil (2017)	√	√	√	√	√		√	√		√	√
Aybas and Acar (2017)	√	√	√	√	√		√	√			√
Mayhew (2017)	√	√	√	√							√
Griffin (2013)	√		√								√
Markos and Sridevi (2010)	√	√	√			√					√
Wang and Noe (2010)	√	√					√
Flippo (1971)	√	√	√	√		√	√		√	√	√
Frequencies	8	7	7	4	2	2	4	2	1	2	7

Note: RS: recruitment and selection; TD: training and development; PA: performance appraisal; IR: Industrial relations; EP: employee participation in decision making; JS: job security; CA: career advancement; WC: working conditions; ES: employment separation; PP: procurement planning; and COM: compensation.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework. Note: RS: recruitment and selection; PA: performance appraisal; TD: training and development; COM: compensation; HRMP: human resource management practices; SR: supervisory role; and EE: employee engagement.

Table 2. Respondent demographics.

		No. of participants	(%)
Gender	Male	138	49.3
	Female	142	50.7
Marital status	Single	58	20.7
	Married	222	79.3
Age (years)	20–25	47	16.79
	26–30	103	36.79
	31–40	116	41.43
	Above 40	14	5.00
Education	Below secondary school	115	41.07
	Secondary/Higher secondary school	59	21.70
	Bachelor and above	106	37.86
Employment level	Non-management staff	165	58.9
	Management staff	115	41.1

Table 3. Measures.

Constructs	Details	Cronbach alpha	Sample item
RS	Bn Aoin (2017); 7 items	0.868	‘My organization follows a comprehensive recruitment and selection policy’
TD	Otoo and Mishra (2018); 5 items	0.905	‘The training methods of my organization are effective’
PA	Otoo and Mishra (2018); 4 items	0.919	‘I think, my last performance evaluation was based on actual data’
COM	Otoo and Mishra (2018); 4 items	0.723	‘I am being paid worth according to my job grade’
EE	Schaufeli et al. (2002); 9 items	0.856	‘I am satisfied with my present job’
SR	Pyhältö et al. (2012); 6 items	0.880	‘I always get assistance from my supervisor’

Note: RS: recruitment and selection; TD: training and development; PA: performance appraisal; COM: compensation; EE: employee engagement; and SR: supervisory role.

Table 4. Convergent validity with loading, α, CR, AVE.

Constructs	Order & scale	Items	Loadings	α	CR	AVE
RS	First order,	RS1	0.756	0.868	0.905	0.655
	Reflective	RS2	0.868
		RS3	0.821
		RS4	0.803
		RS6	0.795
TD	First order,	TD1	0.833	0.905	0.929	0.724
	Reflective	TD2	0.866
		TD3	0.863
		TD4	0.858
		TD5	0.834
PA	First order,	PA1	0.882	0.919	0.939	0.756
	Reflective	PA2	0.834
		PA3	0.884
		PA4	0.858
		PA5	0.888
COM	First order,	COM2	0.732	0.723	0.827	0.548
	Reflective	COM3	0.593
		COM4	0.783
		COM5	0.830
SR	First order,	SR1	0.856	0.880	0.912	0.674
	Reflective	SR2	0.801
		SR3	0.816
		SR4	0.841
		SR5	0.789
EE	First order,	EE2	0.696	0.856	0.893	0.581
	Reflective	EE5	0.791
		EE6	0.786
		EE7	0.737
		EE8	0.790
		EE9	0.769
HRMP	Second order,	RS	0.892	0.890	0.936	0.786
	Reflective	PA	0.938
		TD	0.903
		COM	0.801

Note: RS: recruitment and selection; PA: performance appraisal; TD: training and development; COM: compensation; SR: supervisory role; EE: employee engagement; and HRMP: human resource management practices. Furthermore, RS 5, COM 1, EE 1, 3, 4, and SR6 are deleted to ensure convergent validity.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics, correlation, and discriminant validity.

	RS	PA	TD	COM	EE	SR
RS
Mean = 4.048
SD = 0.706
PA	0.742**
Mean = 3.667	HTMT: 0.847
SD = 0.915
TD	0.724**	0.773**
Mean = 3.834	HTMT: 0.824	HTMT: 0.878
SD = 0.735
COM	0.703**	0.752**	0.652**
Mean = 4.042	HTMT: 0.829	HTMT: 0.873	HTMT: 0.733
SD = 0.478
EE	0.662**	0.721**	0.727**	0.687**
Mean = 3.996	HTMT: 0.776	HTMT: 0.846	HTMT: 0.834	HTMT: 0.808
SD = 0.543
SR	0.617**	0.625**	0.577**	0.582**	0.626**
Mean = 3.814	HTMT:0.659	HTMT: 0.682	HTMT: 0.599	HTMT: 0.642	HTMT: 0.690
SD = 0.566
	EE		HRMP		SR
EE
HRMP	0.895
SR	0.690		0.732

Note: RS: recruitment and selection; PA: performance appraisal; TD: training and development; COM: compensation; EE: employee engagement; and SR: supervisory role. **No discriminant validity is there as the values of constructs are < 0.90.

Table 6. Structural model evaluation.

	Hypotheses	β	SE	t-Value	p-Value	LLCI	ULCI	Decision
H1	HRMP ->EE	0.71	0.05	15.69	p < 0.01	0.62	0.8	Supported
H2	HRMP*SR ->EE	0.11	0.03	3.75	p < 0.01	0.05	0.17	Supported
SRMR value				Model value = 0.074
Constructs				R^2	F^2	Tolerance	Inner VIF	Q^2
EE				0.656	–	–	–	0.378
HRMP				–	0.804	0.582	1.717	–
SR				–	0.048	0.582	1.717	–

Note: LLCI: lower limit confidence interval; ULCI: upper limit confidence interval; HRMP: human resource management practices; EE: employee engagement; SR: supervisory role.

Table 7. Conditional effects of HRMPs on EE at different levels of SR.

SR	Effect	SE	LLCI	ULCI
−4.79	0.18	0.14	−0.10	0.46
−4.46	0.22	0.13	−0.05	0.48
−4.17*	0.25	0.13	0.00	0.50
−4.12	0.25	0.13	0.01	0.50
−3.79	0.29	0.12	0.06	0.52
−3.45	0.33	0.11	0.12	0.54
−3.12	0.37	0.10	0.17	0.56
−2.78	0.40	0.09	0.23	0.58
−2.45	0.44	0.08	0.28	0.60
−2.11	0.48	0.07	0.33	0.62
−1.78	0.52	0.07	0.39	0.64
−1.44	0.55	0.06	0.44	0.67
−1.11	0.59	0.05	0.49	0.69
−0.77	0.63	0.05	0.53	0.72
−0.44	0.66	0.05	0.57	0.75
−0.10	0.70	0.05	0.61	0.79
0.23	0.74	0.05	0.65	0.83
0.57	0.78	0.05	0.68	0.88
0.90	0.81	0.06	0.70	0.92
1.24	0.85	0.06	0.73	0.97
1.57	0.89	0.07	0.75	1.02
1.91	0.93	0.08	0.77	1.08

Note: SE: standard error; LLCI: lower limit confidence interval; ULCI: upper limit confidence interval. *A positive association exists between the independent variable (IV) and dependent variable (DV) when the level of the moderating variable (MV) is -4.17 or higher.

Figure 2. Moderating effects.

Figure 3. Importance-performance matrix analysis. Note: RS: recruitment and selection; PA: performance appraisal; TD: training and development; and COM: compensation.

Table 8. IPMA results.

Latent constructs	Total effect (importance)	Index values (performance)
COM	0.189	58.357
PA	0.299	66.724
RS	0.084	73.240
TD	0.326	65.9025

Note: COM: compensation; PA: performance appraisal; RS: recruitment and selection; TD: training and development.

Boselie, P., Harten, J., & Lippényi, Z. (2019). HR investments in an employable workforce: Mutual gains or conflicting outcomes? In Investments in a sustainable workforce in Europe, pp. 145–160.

 Google Scholar

Aktar, A., & Pangil, F. (2017). The relationship between employee engagement, HRM practices and perceived organizational support: Evidence from banking employees. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 7(3), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijhrs.v7i3.11353

 Google Scholar

Aybas, M., & Acar, A. (2017). The effect of human resource management practices on employees’ work engagement and the mediating and moderating role of positive psychological capital. International Review of Management and Marketing, 7(1), 363–372.

 Google Scholar

Mayhew, R. (2017). Six main functions of a human resource department. https://doi.org/10.1080/07343469.2017.1404851, https://smallbusiness.chron.com/six-main-functions-human-resource-department-60693.html.

 Google Scholar

Griffin, R. W. (2013). Management, 11th ed. Texas A & M University, South-Western, Cengage Learning.

 Google Scholar

Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n12p89

 Google Scholar

Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115–131.

 Google Scholar

Flippo, E. B. (1971). Principles of personnel management. New York: Mc-Graw Hill Book Co. https://www.abebooks.com/Principles-Personnel-Management-Edwin-BFlippo/30813382982/bd

 Google Scholar

Aoin, H. M. (2017). Impact of human resource management on organizational performance within firms in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Advanced Research, 4(3), 1–19.

 Google Scholar

Otoo, F., & Mishra, M. (2018). Measuring the impact of human resource development (HRD) practices on employee performance in small and medium scale enterprises. European Journal of Training and Development, 42(7/8), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-07-2017-0061

 Google Scholar

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A confirmative analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71–92.

 Google Scholar

Pyhältö, K., Vekkaila, J., & Keskinen, J. (2012). Exploring the fit between doctoral students’ and supervisors’ perceptions of resources and challenges vis-à-vis the doctoral journey. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 7(7), 395–414. https://doi.org/10.28945/1745

 Google Scholar