The purpose of study is to examine the relationship between employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior and whether this relationship is strengthen or not when human resource information system is used as a mediating variable. Employee Engagement is considered as an independent variable which is composed of sub variables, Human resource information system together with its enablers is taken as mediating variable, while Organizational citizenship ship behavior which is also composed of some sub variables is considered as dependent variable. A Questionnaire survey was conducted from 154 employees of multiple organizations from all over the Pakistan. Regression analysis and the analysis of variance were used to measure the results, and the results indicated that there is a significant relationship between employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior and this relation is more strengthened when human resource information system is used in the organization.
Keywords: Employee Engagement, Organizational citizenship Behavior, human resource information system.
Introduction
Loyal Employees are the assets of an organization. The helping behavior of the employees at work place and their devotion towards their employer are the essential elements of a prosperous and profitable firm. This study aims to find out the relationship between Organization Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and Employee Engagement (EE) with a mediating effect of Human Resource Information System (HRIS). The brief introduction of these terms is as under.
Organ defined Organization citizenship behavior as "individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization" (Organ, 1988). So it is a term use to define the more than required behavior of an employee at work place. As OCB is flexible behavior that is not part of an employee formal job, but that nevertheless promotes the effective functioning of organization (Bukhari, Ali, Shahzad, & Bashir, 2009). OCB refers to behavior that is not formally requested or directly rewarded but can be functional to the operations of an organization (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Research shows that OCB can have a positive impact on organizational success through improvements in productivity, resource utilization, group activity coordination, performance stability, employee recruitment, selection and retention, and the ability to adapt to environmental changes (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).These all terms use to define a behavior which is not common and is not required in the formal settings of an organization, but if this behavior prevails in the organization it leads towards the profitability and better performance of the firm. How this sort of behavior is developed in the organization? Organ has defined five major constructs that lead to Organization citizenship behavior (OCB), which are also the point of focus in this paper. These constructs involve Altruism, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, Courtesy, and Civic Virtue.
The employee engagement construct is relatively new for HRM and start to exist in the literature for nearly two decades (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004). Saks (2006) and Roberts (2006) noted that engagement is most closely associated with the existing construct of job involvement and flow (Ologbo C. Andrewa, 2012). In engagement organizational members' selves to their work roles, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role performances (Kahn, 1990). Employee engagement has become a widely used and popular term (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004). Ologbo.et al defined employee engagement as 'the level of commitment and involvement an employee has towards his or her organization and its values" (Ologbo C. Andrewa, 2012). However, most of what has been written about employee engagement can be found in practitioner journals where it has its basis in practice rather than theory and empirical research (Saks., 2006). As noted by, Robinson et al, there has been surprisingly little academic and empirical research on a topic that has become so popular (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004).
This paper focuses on six major construct that leads towards employee engagement. These are Individual characteristics(IC), job characteristics (JC), Communication (CN), reward and recognition (RR), work place well being (WPW) and Management and Leadership Support (MLS). The aim is to find out that whether these constructs develop organizational citizenship behavior in employees or not. The definition of human resource information system and its enablers are discussed as under.
The human resource information system (HRIS) is "the composite of databases, computer applications, hardware and software necessary to collect/record, store, manage, deliver, present, and manipulate data for human resources" (Broderick & Boudreau, 1992). The information stored and manipulated about the employees of the organization make them possible to access the required information any time with the help of human resource information system. Many benefits have been cited in literature regarding the benefits of HRIS, however this paper focuses on four key factors which are, relative advantage of using HRIS, information autonomy and information responsiveness enabled by the system and the feedback and control procedure which is also enabled with the use of HRIS. Initially, such a system was used in human resource management to support transaction processing and maintain management control. HRIS is an organized approach for obtaining relevant and timely information on which to base human resource decisions. Then the role of HRIS in development of employee engagement and then in Organizational citizenship behavior is discussed.
The research is divided into several chapters. First chapter contains the introduction of the work done in this study, second chapter contains the review of literatue on these issues, third part contains the Hypothesis development, in forth section the conceptual framework is given, fifth part comprises of research methodology and design, and then results and findings are stated in sixth chapter, final chapter contains the limitation and future directions for further research.
Chapter 2
Literature Review
Organizational citizenship Behavior
Nearly four decades ago, (Katz, 1964) identified the importance of a set of discretionary and impulsive behaviors that are above the defined role requirements, but are highly important for organizational effectiveness. (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983), in a report of empirical research on the characteristics and antecedents of such behaviors, termed these contributions as "organizational citizenship behavior". Later Organ has defined OCB as "individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization. By discretionary, we mean that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of the role or the job description, that is, the clearly specifiable terms of the person's employment contract with the organization; the behavior is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable" (Organ, 1988). However, (Organ, 1997) refined this definition as "conceptualizing organizational citizenship behavior as any form of performance that supports the social or psychological environment in which the work tasks are embedded". Organizational citizenship behavior was first examined by Organ and his colleagues (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). After that, many related concepts have emerged, such as extra-role behavior (Van Dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995), organizational spontaneity (George, 1992), organizational citizenship performance (Borman, 2004), voice behavior (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998) and pro social organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986). These terms are related, but often emphasize different features.
OCB typically refers to "behaviors that positively impact the organization or its members" (Poncheri, 2006). It can be affected by incorporating a perception of perfection in employees regarding their job task (Todd, 2003). There is credible proof that "OCB is an outcome consistent with a social exchange relationship" (Deckop, Mangal, & Circa, 1999). The concern for the organization is closely related to OCB as it will directly affect the working of the organization (Dick, Grojean, Christ, & Wieseke, 2006). But it is also evidenced that citizenship behaviors give better results in long term rather than in short time span (Daniels, Joireman, Falvy, & Kamdar, 2006). Shapiro.et al (2004) considers OCB to be "an extra-role behavior" i.e. it is a behavior which is not explicitly defined by the organization and is completely dependent upon the consent of the employees.
OCB represents "a set of desirable organizational behaviors, which demonstrate multi-dimensional relationships with positive organizational consequences" (Walz & Niehoff, 1996). Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, and Bachrach (2000) distinguished 30 different forms of organizational citizenship behavior (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000).
Initial versions of OCB measures based on interviews by (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983),
Yielded two major factors: altruism and compliance. Organ (1988) suggests that additional noticeable dimensions of OCB might include "courtesy" (actions that help to avoid problems for coworkers), sportsmanship (facing the behaviors of others with a positive attitude), and civic virtue (Active participation in organization's extra role activities) (Farh., Zhong., & Organ., 2004).
Form the above given definitions it can be seen that the term OCB is very wider. Multiple terms are used in contrast with organizational citizenship behavior. This paper focuses on five major constructs identified by organ (1988) i.e (Altruism, Conscientiousness, Sportsmanship, courtesy, Civic virtue that lead to organizational citizenship behavior. These constructs together with their meanings are discussed as follows.
Altruism
Altruism is defined as voluntary actions that help another person with a work problem-instructing a new hire on how to use equipment, helping a coworker catch up with a backlog of work, fetching materials that a colleague needs and cannot procure on his own (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000) (Organ, 1988). Altruism are defined as the Discretionary behaviors that have the effect of helping a specific other person with an organizationally relevant task or problem (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Smith, Organ, & Near (1983) defines altruism as capture(s) behavior that is directly and intentionally aimed at helping a specific person in face-to-face situations (e.g., orienting new people, assisting someone with a heavy workload) (Smith, Organ, & Near, 1983). Todd found that Altruism, for instance, usually is interpreted to reflect the willingness of an employee to help a coworker, also is referred to and explained as the selflessness of an employee towards organization (Todd, 2003). Another definition is that 'altruism' involves helping specific individuals in relation to organizational tasks (Redman & Snap, 2005). The altruistic person can obtain utility from other persons' utility (by convincing them with their selflessness aspect of personality) (Wu, 2001). Altruism or helping coworkers makes the work system more efficient because one worker can utilize his or her slack time to assist another on a more urgent task (Yen & Neihoff, 2004). Altruism is the most significant antecedents of OCB, reason being, as Pare' & Tremblay (2000) explains altruism as behaviors such as helping a colleague who has been absent from work, helping others who have heavy workloads, being mindful of how one's own behavior affects others' jobs, and providing help and support to new employees represent clear indications of an employee's interest for its work environment (Pare & Tremblay, 2000). Altruism encourages teamwork and cooperation, allowing employees to increase the pool of available knowledge (Yen & Neihoff, 2004). So altruism is all about helping others at the work place, this more than the required behavior makes altruism a major construct of organizational citizenship behavior. .
Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness is a pattern of going well beyond minimally required levels of attendance, punctuality, housekeeping, conserving resources, and related matters of internal maintenance (Organ, 1988) (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Podsakoff define conscientiousness as Discretionary behaviors on the part of the employee that go well beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization, in the areas of attendance, obeying rules and regulations, taking breaks, and so forth (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Conscientiousness refers to instances in which employees perform their role behaviors well beyond the minimum required levels, such as attending required meetings, keeping one's work area clean, punctuality, and adherence to other formal and informal rules designed to preserve order in the work place (Organ, 1988). Organ linked conscientiousness with "should" type of behaviors: "Indeed, people who demonstrate conscientiousness often may not even have a "target" or "recipient" in mind; it is more in the notion of a code, or level of resolve as to how one should behave (Organ, 1988).
Conscientiousness is thus taking the initiative to engage in behaviors for the good of the organization, it can be expressed in numerous ways in organizations and, most obviously, in terms of job performance (King, George, & Hebl, 2005). Behavior that go beyond the basic requirements of the job in terms of obeying work rules, attendance and job performance (Redman & Snap, 2005). In other words, conscientiousness means the thorough adherence to organizational rules and procedures, even when no one is watching (Bukhari, Ali, Shahzad, & Bashir, 2009). So it can be observed from the definitions that conscientiousness is a behavior which is more than the required one and is essential for the better performance of the organization.
Courtesy
Organ defines courtesy as subsumes all of those foresightful gestures that help someone else prevent a problem, touching base with people before committing to actions that will affect them, providing advance notice to someone who needs to know to schedule work (Organ, 1988) (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Discretionary behavior on the part of an individual aimed at preventing work-related problems with others from occurring (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). These behaviors are more general in nature, aimed at preventing potential problems from happening (Ahmad., 2011). Courtesy attitude covers up all behaviors for helping others in avoiding problems to occur (Polat, 2009). Examples of this attitude include trying to prevent other people from suffering as a result of a certain event, informing fellow workmen on work schedule about the points which must be taken into consideration in advance (Organ, 1990) (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). It includes advance notice, reminders, passing along information, consultation, and briefing all suggest the intrinsic quality of courtesy" (Organ, 1988). Organ argues that courtesy behaviors (e.g., advance notice of non-routine demands) enable co-workers to efficiently order and distribute their efforts, thereby reducing the chance of wasting resources and experiencing anger or frustration (Organ, 1988).
Sportsmanship
Willingness of the employee to tolerate less than ideal circumstances without complaining to "avoid complaining, petty grievances, railing against real or imagined slights, and making federal cases out of small potatoes" (Organ, Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome., 1988). Enduring uncomfortable working conditions without complaining can be seen as the opposite of hedonism, a value cherished by individualists and consistent with conformity, a value viewed as important by collectivists (Schwartz, 1992). Sportsmanship behaviors are aimed at maintaining the status quo and promoting social harmony (Wang., Hinrichs., Prieto., & Howell, 2010). Organizational loyalty entails promoting the organization to outsiders, defending it against external threats, and remaining committed to it regardless of the circumstance (Ahmad., 2011). Sportsmanship is a citizen-like posture of tolerating the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work without whining and grievances (Organ, 1988) (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). The definitions of sportsmanship are quite narrow. Empirical research (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Fetter, 1993) (MacKenzie, Podsakoff, & Rich, 1999) that has included sportsmanship in the context of other forms of citizenship behavior has shown it to be distinct from them, and to have somewhat different antecedents (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Bommer, 1996) (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990) and consequences (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997) (Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1997) (Walz & Niehoff, 1996). Good sportsman are people who not only do not complain when they are inconvenienced by others, but also maintain a positive attitude even when things do not go their way, are not offended when others do not follow their suggestions, are willing to sacrifice their personal interest for the good of the work group, and do not take the rejection of their ideas personally. (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). This sort of behavior which is unusual in employees is considered as a contributor towards OCB.
Civic Virtue
Organ Defines that civic virtue is responsible, constructive involvement in the political process of the organization, including not just expressing opinions but reading one's mail, attending meetings, and keeping abreast of larger issues involving the organization. (Organ, 1988) (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Behavior on the part of an individual that indicates that he/she responsibly participates in, is involved in, or is concerned about the life of the company (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). Civic virtue' refers to behaviors that demonstrate a responsible concern for the image and wellbeing of the organization (Redman & Snap, 2005). Baker (2005) explains Civic virtue is responsible, constructive involvement in the political processes of the organization (Baker, 2005). Redman & Snape (2005) explain the civic virtue is positively predicted by commitment to customers and co-workers (hence resulting in the behavior, beneficial to the organization) with evidence of partial mediation by global commitment (Redman & Snap, 2005) . This is shown by a willingness to participate actively in its governance (e.g., attend meetings, engage in policy debates, express one's opinion about what strategy the organization ought to follow, etc.); to monitor its environment for threats and opportunities (e.g., keep up with changes in the industry that might affect the organization); and to look out for its best interests (e.g., reporting fire hazards or suspicious activities, locking doors, etc.), even at great personal cost (Podsakoff P. M., MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). Effective participation of workmen in the meetings, to show interest in policies of the organization, to make contributions and deliver opinions for the strategies of the organization, to cope with the changes in organizational framework, to observe the environment for avoiding any hazard to the organization, to report any unusual incidence in the workplace, to be ready against any risk are some of the examples of this behavior (Organ, 1988).
It has been proposed earlier that there is a relationship between Employee Engagement and OCB, this paper aims to find out the potential relationship between these two terms means that whether engaging the employees within the activities of the organization develops the organization citizenship behavior among them or not. First we will discuss the main components that are essential for engaging the employees and than their impact on OCB will be discussed.
Employee Engagement
Kahn (1990) was one of the pioneers in applying the concept of engagement to the workplace (Avery, McKay, & Wilson, 2007). Kahn (1990, p. 694) defines personal engagement as "the harnessing of organization members' selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances", Personal disengagement refers to "the uncoupling of selves from work roles; in disengagement, people withdraw and defend themselves physically, cognitively, or emotionally during role performances" (Kahn, 1990). Engagement means to be psychologically present when occupying and performing an organizational role (Saks., 2006). Rothbard (2001) defined engagement as psychological presence but goes further to state that it involves two critical components: attention and absorption (Saks., 2006). Attention refers to "cognitive availability and the amount of time one spends thinking about a role" while absorption "means being engrossed in a role and refers to the intensity of one's focus on a role" (Saks., 2006).
The word engagement is defined by various authors. To make matters worse, employee engagement has been defined in many different ways and the definitions and measures often sound like other better known and established constructs like organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004) (Saks., 2006). Mostly engagement has been defined as emotional and intellectual commitment to the organization (Baumruk, 2004) (Richman, 2006) (Shaw, 2005) or the amount of discretionary effort exhibited by employees in their jobs (Frank, Finnegan, & Taylor, 2004). Engagement as "a positive attitude held by the employee toward the organization and its value" (Endres, 2008), and in a Society for Human Resource management article, Lockwood (2005) defined engagement as "a state by which individuals are emotionally and intellectually committed to the organization or group" (Lockwood & SPHR, 2005), Engagement has been used to refer to a psychological state (e.g., involvement, commitment, attachment, mood), performance construct (e.g., either effort or observable behavior, including pro-social and organizational citizenship behavior), disposition (e.g., positive affect), or some combination of the above (William & Benjamin, 2008). For example, Wellins and Concelman suggested that engagement is ''an amalgamation of commitment, loyalty, productivity and ownership'' (Wellins & Concelman, 2005). Harter, Schmidt, and Keyes defined employee engagement as a combination of cognitive and emotional variables in a workplace such as satisfaction, joy, fulfillment, and caring which increase positive effects (Harter, Schmidt, & Keyes, 2003). (Krug, 2008) defined engagement as "a motivational construct that defines the ability of the employee to feel part of the work process, not only in terms of the physical process it entails, but also emotionally and cognitively". Truss et al studied employee attitudes and engagement in United Kingdom. They defined engagement as a psychological state that employees have toward their organization and work. A highly-engaged employee is defined as a "passionate employee, the employee who is totally immersed in his or her work, energetic, committed and completely dedicated…the more engaged they will be, the better they will perform, and the less likely they will be to quit their organization" (Truss, Soane, Edwards, Wisdom, Croll, & Burnett, 2006).
The second perspective of the definition of employee engagement based on the job burnout. Burnout researchers define engagement as the opposite or positive antithesis of burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Cartwright and Holmes defined job burnout as "a psychological syndrome that involves a prolonged response to chronic interpersonal stressors and leads to poor job performance, withdrawal behaviors and poor mental health and is the negative antithesis of job engagement" (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006). Maslach et al explains that engagement is characterized by energy, involvement, and efficacy, the direct opposite of the three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy. Employees with job burnout are not only associated with several forms of job withdrawal, such as lower productivity, absenteeism, and intentional or actual turnover, but they also negatively affect their colleagues and the organization environment (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). According to Maslach et al. (2001), six areas of work-life lead to burnout and engagement: workload, Control, rewards and recognition, community and social support, perceived fairness, and values. (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) also proposed that burnout and engagement are inversely related. Work engagement refers to a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one's work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one's work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002). (Kahn, 1990) found that there were three psychological conditions associated with engagement or disengagement at work: meaningfulness, safety, and availability. In the only study to empirically test Kahn's (1990) model, (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004) found that meaningfulness, safety, and availability were significantly related to engagement. May et al also found that job enrichment and role fit were positive predictors of meaningfulness; rewarding co-worker and supportive supervisor relations were positive predictors of safety while adherence to co-worker norms and self-consciousness were negative predictors; and resources available was a positive predictor of psychological availability while participation in outside activities was a negative predictor (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004).
From the above given definitions it can be seen that the employee engagement is a term that is used for showing the devotion of the employees towards their jobs which is because of their satisfaction with their jobs. In order to engage the employees with the organization certain elements are essential. This paper focuses on 6 major components of employee engagement which are Job characteristics (JC), Individual Characteristics (IC), Communication (CN), Reward and Recognition (RR), Workplace Well being (WPW) and Management and Leadership supports (MLS). The meanings and sources of these variables are defined as follows.
Job Characteristics
Job characteristics are defined in terms of job fit which is defined as the degree to which a person feels their personality and values fit with their current job (Resick, Monson, & Chard, 2007). Good job fit has been shown to promote a sense of belonging resulting in professional alignment with interests and values (Kahn, 1990) (Saks., 2006) and is shown to significantly affect the development of job related attitudes such as employee engagement. Britt et al defined job engagement as "feeling responsible for and [being] committed to superior job performance, so that job performance „matters‟ to the individual" (Britt, Dickinson, Greene-Shortridge, & & McKibben, 2007). According to Britt and colleagues, highly-engaged employees are employees who care about their job performance and are committed to performing well because all aspects of performance at work have great implications for their identity, which is important to them. Job characteristics are also defined in terms of psychological meaningfulness. Psychological meaningfulness involves a sense of return on investments of the self-in-role performances (Kahn, 1992). According to Kahn (Kahn, 1990) (Kahn, 1992), psychological meaningfulness can be achieved from task characteristics that provide challenging work, variety, allow the use of different skills, personal discretion, and the opportunity to make important contributions. This is based on (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) job characteristics model and in particular, the five core job characteristics (i.e. skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback). Jobs that are high on the core job characteristics provide individuals with the room and incentive to bring more of themselves into their work or to be more engaged (Kahn, 1992). Engaged employees have high levels of energy, are enthusiastic about their work, and they are often fully immersed in their job so that time flies (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004); (Schneider, Macey, & Barbera, 2009). May et al. (2004) found that job enrichment was positively related to meaningfulness and meaningfulness mediated the relationship between job enrichment and engagement. (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004) (Saks., 2006). Job characteristics lead to engaged employee which develops organizational citizenship behavior among employees.
Individual Characteristics
Management and Leadership Support
Research (Wildermuth & Pauken, 2008); (Wallace, 2009) are of the view that engagement occurs naturally when leaders are inspiring. When the work of employees considered important and meaningful they feel engaged. Here the role of leadership is to ensure that the employees should see how their work contributes towards the overall organizational success. Authentic and supportive leadership is theorized to impact employee engagement of followers in the sense of increasing their involvement, satisfaction and enthusiasm for work (Gardner W. L., 2005); (Schneider, Macey, & Barbera, 2009). (Babin & Boles, 1996) define supervisory support as "the degree to which employees perceive that supervisors offer employees support, encouragement and concern." As employees perceive more supervisory support, they feel more secure and sense that the firm takes care of their welfare (DeConinck, 2010). Organizational members felt safe in work environments that were characterized by openness and supportiveness (Saks., 2006). Supportive environments allow members to experiment and to try new things and even fail without fear of the consequences (Kahn, 1990). In their empirical test of Kahn's model, May et al also found that supportive supervisor relations was positively related to psychological safety (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004). Psychological safety involves a sense of being able to show and employ the self without negative consequences (Kahn, 1992). So management and leadership support is essential for the development of employee engagement.
Reward and Recognition.
(Kahn, 1990) reported that people vary in their engagement as a function of their perceptions of the benefits they receive from a role. According to (Andrew & Kent, 2007), commitment of all employees is based on rewards and recognition. (Lawler, 2003) argued that prosperity and survival of the organizations is determined through the human resources how they are treated. Furthermore, a sense of return on investments can come from external rewards and recognition in addition to meaningful work. (Freedman, 1978) is of the view that when effective rewards and recognition are implemented within an organization, favorable working environment is produced which motivates employees to excel in their performance. (Deeprose, 1994) argued that the motivation of employees and their productivity can be enhanced through providing them effective recognition which ultimately results in improved performance of organizations. The entire success of an organization is based on how an organization keeps its employees motivated and in what way they evaluate the performance of employees for job compensation (Rizwan., Qaiser., & Danish., 2010). (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001) suggested that while a lack of rewards and recognition can lead to burnout, appropriate recognition and reward is important for engagement. (Entwistle, 1987) is of the view that if an employee performs successfully, it leads to organizational rewards and as a result motivational factor of employees lies in their performance. When rewards and recognitions are given to employees with justification it creates sense of engagement in them with the organization.
Workplace well being
Workplace well-being is one more important measure that enhances employee engagement. Wellbeing is a broader construct than happiness' and includes wellbeing in terms of personal growth, purpose in life, positive relationships with others, and social contribution and integration (Eid & Larsen, 2008); (Keys C. , 1988); (Ryff C. , 1989). Hawthorne studies in the 1920s highlighted the role and contribution of happiness to productivity. Recent research has supported this hypothesis (Quick & Quick, 2004); (Wright & Cropanzano, 2007). When defined as "all the things that are important to how we think about and experience our lives," wellbeing becomes the most important measure for gauging the influence organization has on employees. (Wright, 2006) and (Harter, Schmidt., & Hayes., 2002) suggests that employee wellbeing may eventually prove to be a more robust predictor of whether employees decided to stay or leave their jobs than either job satisfaction or job commitment. Additionally, wellbeing has been related to improved physical health (Carver, Scheier, & Segerstrom, 2010), personal striving, coping with stress (Emmons, 1992); (Freedman, 1978), and satisfaction with important other life domains (Diener & Lucas, 2000). So it is proposed that employee's well being leads to more engaged employees and assists in development of organizational citizenship behavior.
Communication
The role of communication is an important factor in the understanding of the value of intangible organizational assets (Ritter, 2003). Communication within organizations is linked to higher levels of performance and service (Tourish & Hargie, 2009) generating communication capital (Malmelin, 2007) and social capital (Lee, 2009), grounded in organizational relationships. Employees experience uncertainty when there is a difference between information available and information needed (Goldhaber, 1993). Communication plays important role in engagement. As Truss at el report three most important factors for engagement: i) having opportunities to feed your views upwards; ii) feeling well informed about what is happening in the organization; and iii) thinking that your manager is committed to your organization (Truss, Soane, Edwards, Wisdom, Croll, & Burnett, 2006).
When employees perceive sufficient developmental feedback, they have accurate guidance on how to become more effective (Jaworski & Kohli, 1991). (Bulent, Seigyoung, Michelle, & Abeer, 2012) define supervisory feedback as employees' perception that they are receiving clear information about their performance outcome and suggestions for improvement. This, in essence, fosters more communication between the two parties and helps the firm [or supervisor] map out ways to improve performance (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). When employees perceive that they are receiving more can did and accurate developmental feedback, they sense that supervisors are interested in their growth, development, and learning (Ashford & Cummings, 1983). In contrast, a lack of feedback can create ambiguity, conflict, and confusion about what is expected (Jaworski & Kohli, 1991). (Bulent, Seigyoung, Michelle, & Abeer, 2012). Communication is essential within the organization in order to engage the employees, engaging employees will lead to the development of Organizational citizenship behavior.
Mediating Role of Human Resource Information System
It is proposed in this study that, In order to strengthen the relationship between employee engagement and organizational citizenship, Human resource information system act as a mediator. As all the employees are engaged through this HRIS, so continuous information flow and communication takes place, which may lead towards more engaged employees and ultimately towards the development of Organizational citizenship behavior. There is not complete agreement as to the meaning of the HRIS, or human resource information system (Raymond & Gerardine, 1995). The term HRIS is used in two different ways, one usage regards it as an organizational unit within the human resources functional area, which specializes in human resource information (Raymond & Gerardine, 1995). The other usage regards the HRIS as the entire computer based applications that process human resource information, regardless of where the information-processing resources are located (Raymond & Gerardine, 1995). So Human resource information system (HRIS) is a system used to acquire, store, manipulate, analyze, retrieve and distribute pertinent information about an organization's human resource (Tannenbaum, 1990). Initially, such a system was used in human resource management to support transaction processing and maintain management control (Normalini, Ramayah, & Sherah, 2012). The special function of HRIS is to gather, collect and help analyze the data necessary for the human resource department to do its job properly (Anthony, Kacmar, & Perrewe, 2002). A good human resource decision is more likely to follow from a good HRIS (Normalini, Ramayah, & Sherah, 2012). The HRIS can improve administrative efficiency through faster information processing, improved employee communications, greater information accuracy, lower HR costs and overall HR productivity improvements (Dery, Grant, & Wiblen, 2009); (Wiblen, Grant, & Dery, 2010). HRIS can facilitate strategic value generation by helping design and implement internally consistent policies and practices that ensure that human assets contribute to achieving business objectives (Boateng, 2007). (Beckers & Bsat, 2002) pointed out at least five reasons why companies should use HRIS. These are, i) increase competitiveness by improving HR operations; ii) produce a greater number and variety of HR-related reports; iii) shift the focus of HR from the processing of transactions to strategic HRM; iv) make employees part of HRIS; and v) reengineer the entire HR function of companies.
As the human resource management function increases its use of IT, there are likely to be implications for HR professionals as well (Sparrow & Daniels, 1999). As more HR professionals are able to be more responsive, answer queries more quickly, and provide more accurate information, HRIS may enable HR professionals to increase their responsiveness to their constituencies (Normalini, Ramayah, & Sherah, 2012). (Slotnick, Colantonio, Kopetzky, & Slotnick, 1986) lists the attributes applicable to HRIS as efficient use of resources, speed, compatibility, updateability, accessibility, data integrity and privacy and security. (Cohen, 1989a) (Cohen, 1989c) (Cohen, 1989b) identifies the essential functions of an HRIS as: selection and placement; performance management; training and education; and career planning and development.
So from the above given definitions it can be seen that HRIS is used to increase the human resource responsiveness and communication flow in the organization. The reasons of using HRIS in organization involves, the Relative Advantage (RA) provided by the system, and the degree to which it Enables Information Responsiveness (EIR), Enable Information Autonomy (EIA), and increases the process of feedback and communication within the organization, which will engage the employees of the organization which ultimately leads towards the development of Organization citizenship behavior.. These terms together with their meanings and sources of adaptation are as follows.
Relative advantage
(Rogers, 2003) defines relative advantage as the degree to which an innovation is perceived to be better than the idea it supersedes. It can also be viewed as the degree to which an innovation is perceived to bring added benefits to the user (Normalini, Ramayah, & Sherah, 2012). Hence, it is often measured in terms of economic profitability, productivity improvement and other benefits (Normalini, Ramayah, & Sherah, 2012). The adoption of an innovation depends on whether the expected benefits of an innovation match the demand of potential adopters (Normalini, Ramayah, & Sherah, 2012). In the technology acceptance model (TAM) by (Davis, 1989), this particular attribute is referred to as perceived usefulness. In general, the relative advantage of an innovation as perceived by members of a social system is positively related to its rate of adoption. So with the use of Human Resource Information system, the employees are better informed, and receive the potential advantage of HRIS by increase performance.
Enable information responsiveness
The automation of HR activities may impact the role of HR professionals by absorbing information-intensive tasks (Snell, Pedigo, & Krawiec, 1995); (Zuboff, 1988). As IT is used more extensively, it might enable HR professionals to access more information, allow them to answer queries from employees and managers in a timely fashion, and enable them to be more efficient at handling complex information as repetitive job tasks are automated (Normalini, Ramayah, & Sherah, 2012). As more HR professionals are able to be more responsive, answer queries more quickly and provide more accurate information, IT may enable HR professionals to increase their responsiveness to their constituencies (Gardner, Lepak, & Bartol, 2003), HRIS may enable these professionals to increase their responsiveness to their constituencies (Normalini, Ramayah, & Sherah, 2012). Thus, with more extensive use of HRIS, HR professionals are able to provide increased information responsiveness (Normalini, Ramayah, & Sherah, 2012). With the use of HRIS employees are more informed so a sense of belonging may be developed in them, which will make them engaged with the organization and will ultimately lead to the development of Organizational citizenship behavior.
Enable information autonomy
According to (Remenyi, Money, & Twite, 1991) and (Zuboff, 1988), increased autonomy may result from HR employees using sites such as kiosk and web applications that come from increased HRIS usage. Managers perceived IT as improving their confidence in decision making, removing uncertainty from decisions, and overall increasing their role in the organization (Buchanan & McCalman, 1988). (Snell, Pedigo, & Krawiec, 1995) suggest that increased HR autonomy may result from employees using sites such as kiosks and web applications that are a result of increased IT usage. With the use of automated Human resource information system, employees feel control over the information, and feel that they are associated with the functioning of the organization, this association leads towards engagement and ultimately towards OCB.
Feedback and Control
Chapter 3
Mediating VariableConceptual Framework
Human Resource Information System (HRIS)
Relative Advantage
Enable Information Responsiveness
Enable Information Autonomy
Feedback and Control
Dependent Variable
Dependent Variable
Organization Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
Altruism
Conscientiousness
Sportsmanship
Courtesy
Civic Virtue.
Employee Engagement
Individual characteristics
Job characteristics
Communication
Reward and Recognition
Workplace well being
Management and Leadership Support
Mediator
Chapter
Hypothesis Development
Chapter
Regression Analysis
In this study linear regression analysis is used to find out the relationship between employee engagement and organization citizenship behavior, and whether this relationship strengthens or not when human resource information system is used in the organization. Employee engagement and human resource information system (HRIS) were taken as the independent variable, while organization citizenship behavior (OCB) was taken as the dependent variable. The results revealed that almost 66% respondents believe that there is a significant relationship between employee engagement and OCB and this relationship is strengthened when HRIS is used in the Organization.
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.803a
.645
.627
.31974
a. Predictors: (Constant), HRISD, MLS, JC, RR, IC, WPW, CN
Relationship between Employee engagement and Organization citizenship behavior
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.780a
.608
.592
.33462
a. Predictors: (Constant), CN, IC, JC, RR, MLS, WPW
Results
The results of linear regression have shown that there is a significant relationship between employee engagement and organizational citizenship behavior, which means that almost 61% variation in dependent variable, is explained by independent variable.
ANOVA
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
25.207
6
4.201
37.520
.000a
a. Predictors: (Constant), CN, IC, JC, RR, MLS, WPW
b. Dependent Variable: OCBD
Coefficients
Model
Un standardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
1
(Constant)
.942
.222
4.251
.000
JC
.221
.057
.252
3.878
.000
IC
.135
.057
.152
2.365
.019
MLS
.014
.057
.020
.248
.804
RR
.015
.043
.024
.340
.734
WPW
.045
.064
.061
.703
.483
CN
.355
.073
.435
4.869
.000
a. Dependent Variable: OCBD
The result of regression analysis revealed that job characteristics (JC), Individual characteristics(IC), and communication (CN) has a significant relationship with organization citizenship behavior, while management and leadership support (MLS), reward and recognition (RR) and workplace well being (WPW) have shown insignificant relationship. It means that job and individual characteristics and the communication in organization are more vital for developing OCB. It is because that employee's satisfaction with their job tasks and duties creates motivation in them to work for the organization which in turns develops organization citizenship behavior. Individual characteristics have significance because when a person is satisfied with his job as discussed above, he becomes self motivated, this self motivation creates sense of belonging which in turns creates OCB. Frequent communications and interactions among the employees also lead towards OCB.
MEDIATING ROLE OF HRIS IN THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND OCB
Model Summary
Model
R
R Square
Adjusted R Square
Std. Error of the Estimate
1
.803a
.645
.627
.31974
a. Predictors: (Constant), HRISD, MLS, JC, RR, IC, WPW, CN
Results
The result revealed that the relationship between Employee Engagement and Organizational Citizenship behavior is strengthened, when Human Resource Information System used as a mediating variable. Value of R2 increased from 61% to 64.5% because of HRIS mediating role. Adding Human Resource Information System with the constructs of employee engagement, has increased the value of R square, which shows that HRIS lends a hand in developing organization citizenship behavior in employees of the company.
ANOVAb
Model
Sum of Squares
df
Mean Square
F
Sig.
1
Regression
26.720
7
3.817
37.338
.000a
a. Predictors: (Constant), HRISD, MLS, JC, RR, IC, WPW, CN
b. Dependent Variable: OCBD
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
Standardized Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Beta
t
Sig.
1
(Constant)
.562
.234
2.405
.017
JC
.190
.055
.216
3.445
.001
IC
.077
.057
.087
1.354
.178
MLS
.027
.055
.037
.488
.626
RR
.003
.041
.006
.082
.934
WPW
.029
.061
.040
.476
.635
CN
.343
.070
.419
4.911
.000
HRISD
.211
.055
.222
3.848
.000
a. Dependent Variable: OCBD
Results
The result of the regression analysis shows that job characteristics (JC), Communication (CN) and Human Resource Information Drivers(HRISD) has a significant positive relationship with organization citizenship behavior, while Individual characteristics(IC), management and leadership support (MLS), reward and recognition (RR) and workplace well being (WPW) have shown insignificant relationship.
