The relationship between training perception and employee engagement: Impacts of perception of reward and self-efficacy

Bạn đang xem bản rút gọn của tài liệu. Xem và tải ngay bản đầy đủ của tài liệu tại đây (1.06 MB, 80 trang )

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

<b>VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY </b>

<b>HOANG VU DUONG </b>

<b>THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN </b>

<b>TRAINING PERCEPTION AND </b>

<b>EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: IMPACTS </b>

<b>OF PERCEPTION OF REWARD AND </b>

<b>SELF-EFFICACY</b>

<b>MASTER THESIS </b>

<b>BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION </b>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(2)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=2>

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

<b>VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY </b>

<b>HOANG VU DUONG </b>

<b>THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN </b>

<b>TRAINING PERCEPTION AND </b>

<b>EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: IMPACTS </b>

<b>OF PERCEPTION OF REWARD AND </b>

<b>SELF-EFFICACY</b>

<b> </b>

<b>MAJOR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION </b>

<b>CODE: 60340102 </b>

<b>RESEARCH SUPERVISORS </b>

<b>DR. TRAN HUY PHUONG </b>

<b>ASSOC. PROF. KODO YOKOZAWA </b>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(3)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=3>

<b>ACKOWLEDGEMENT </b>

First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Tran Huy Phuong and
Assoc. Prof. Kodo Yokozawa, who are my supervisors, for their guidance,
encouragement and useful comments on my master thesis. These considerably help
me in completing this research work.

I also would like to say thank to Vietnam Japan University and all lecturers here,
especially in program of MBA, for giving me opportunity to study and experience in
international and academic environment, which provides me valuable knowledge
both theoretically and practically.

Furthermore, I want to thank all staffs of VJU, especially Ms. Huong of from MBA
program, for greatly supporting me during 2 years studying.

Last but not least, I want to express my gratitude to all of my friends, especially Ms.
Nguyen Huyen Trang and Ms. Nguyen Thi Ngoc Anh for their help and
encouragement, which academically and mentally support me at any difficult time.
Sincerely,

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(4)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=4>

<b>TABLE OF CONTENTS </b>
LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ... 1

1.1. Research motivation ... 1

1.2. Research objectives ... 2

1.3. Research scope and objects ... 3

1.4. The structure of the paper ... 3

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ... 4

2.1. Employee engagement ... 4

2.2. Employee training ... 10

2.3. Self-efficacy ... 17

2.4. Reward ... 21

2.5. Research questions ... 25

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 26

3.1. Research design ... 26

3.2. Conceptual research model ... 27

Variables and measuring instruments ... 27

Training perception ... 27

Self-efficacy ... 28

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(5)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=5>

Employee engagement ... 29

Conceptual research model ... 30

3.3. Population, sample and data collection ... 31

Questionnaire design and administration ... 31

Population ... 32

Sample and data collection process ... 32

3.4. Sample demographics ... 33

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS ... 34

4.1. Data preparation ... 34

4.2. Descriptive statistics ... 34

4.3. Reliability and validity ... 36

4.3.1. Reliability ... 36

4.3.2. Validity ... 37

4.4. Pearson correlation ... 39

4.5. Regression analysis and hypotheses testing ... 39

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION ... 46

5.1. Research findings ... 46

5.2. Contribution and implication ... 50

5.3. Limitation and future research ... 52

REFERENCES ... 54

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(6)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=6>

<b>LIST OF FIGURES </b>

Figure 2.1. Summary of antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.. 10

Figure 2.2. Training components and employee engagement model ... 15

Figure 2.3. Sources of Self-efficacy ... 19

Figure 2.4. Engagement Diagnostic Tool: National Health Service ... 22

Figure 2.5. Total reward system ... 23

Figure 3.1. Conceptual research model ... 30

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(7)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=7>

<b>LIST OF TABLES </b>

Table 3.1: Frequency of demographic information of respondents ... 33

Table 4.1: Coding of variables ... 34

Table 4.2: Descriptive statistics of all variables ... 35

Table 4.3: Overall Cronbach’s alpha for each variable and sub-variable ... 36

Table 4.4: Item-total statistics for Intrinsic reward variable ... 37

Table 4.5: Rotated component matrix ... 38

Table 4.6: Pearson correlation matrix ... 39

Table 4.7: Regression analysis (Dependent variable: Employee Engagement) ... 40

Table 4.8: Mediation analysis (Dependent variable: Employee engagement;
Mediator: Self-efficacy) ... 42

Table 4.9: Moderation analysis ... 44

Table 5.1: Summary of the results of hypotheses testing ... 46

<b>LIST OF ABBREVIATION </b>

HR human resources

HRD human resources development

HRM human resources management

JTJSS Job Training and Job Satisfaction Survey

SHRM Society of Human Resources Management

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(8)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=8>

<b>CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION </b>

<b>1.1. </b> <b>Research motivation </b>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(9)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=9>

ways for organizations to enhance level of engagement of employees. Annual reports
on employee satisfaction and engagement by Society of Human Resources
Management showed many conditions for employee engagement, including training
and development. However, training and development took account for almost the
lowest position in the recent years (SHRM, 2015, 2016, 2017), despite the fact that
several studies mentioned significant impacts of training on engagement.

These indications suggest the need to have a deeper look at such relationship and
become the significant motivations for conducting this study.

<b>1.2. </b> <b>Research objectives </b>

Basically, the objective of this research is to explore the link between employee
training and employee engagement in current Vietnamese context. According to a
report about Employee Engagement & Retention in Vietnam (Towers Watson, 2010),
in the period of 4 years from 2007 to 2010, the percentage of employee engagement
in Vietnam had remained stable at around 78%, which was just ahead of the Asia
Pacific Region. Whereby, the possible reasons for this high level are management
systems, employee perceptions on company image, effective performance evaluation,
empowerment and sophistication. However, Brands Vietnam – an electronic portal
with high reputation in Vietnam, showed that this indication has declined
considerably by about 10%, stayed at 70% in 2017, and even lower in 2015 and 2016.
Although it still accounted for a good level in comparison with the level of the world
and Asia, this decrease has been a warning for organizations in Vietnam. Together
with the number which is indicated by Gallup mentioned above, it is suggested that
the employee engagement should be improved, and there have been several
opportunities for enhancing the business as well as talent management for companies
in Vietnam.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(10)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=10>

to propose suggestions to improve the level of engagement for organizations in
Vietnam, hence enrich the outcomes and performance for those companies.

<b>1.3. </b> <b>Research scope and objects </b>

Basically, the scope of the study will be employees who have working experience for
a company in Vietnam and received training activities while working. Besides, since
the employee engagement is a psychological and behavioral term, it is understandable
that other variables should be psychologically and behaviorally studied, from the
view point of employee. Particularly, this research has investigated in the perception
and satisfaction of employees on the organizational training activities they received,

their self-efficacy and perception on reward received from organization, in order to
see the relationship between those factors on their perceived employee engagement.
It will be discussed further on the next Chapter.

<b>1.4. </b> <b>The structure of the paper </b>

The paper starts with a chapter which provide an introduction for the study. After that,
it continues with 4 chapters of reviewing literature, method for study, data collection
and analysis, and findings and conclusions. Particularly:

Chapter 1 discusses about the introduction with research motivation, research
objectives, scope and objects.

Chapter 2 reviews and summarizes the previous papers which related to the variables
in this study, as well as proposes research questions and hypotheses.

Chapter 3 provides information about the approach method, research model and
method of collecting data.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(11)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=11>

<b>CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW </b>

This chapter deals with theoretical parts of the key concepts in this study, and reviews
of the papers which researched about related issues.

<b>2.1. </b> <b>Employee engagement </b>

The definition of employee engagement, for nearly 3 decades of researching and
developing, is still raising a controversy among researchers and organizations. In

other words, there still have no certain definition for this term, but it varied depends
on how researchers and people look at it.

The first time when the term “engagement” had been conceptualized was in 1990, by
Kahn. At that time, he defined 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”.
According to Kahn, people with engagement are enabled to concomitantly express
their preferred selves and completely satisfy their role requirements. Kahn suggests
three direct psychological conditions of meaningfulness, psychological safety and
psychological availability as inﬂuencing employees’ engagement (May et al., 2004;
Rich et al., 2010).

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(12)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=12>

employee engagement, which, according to them, is viewed as “a desirable condition,
has an organizational purpose, and connotes involvement, commitment, passion,
enthusiasm, focused eﬀort and energy, so it has both attitudinal and behavioral
components”. It is easy to see that almost the developed definitions for employee
engagement are related to individual psychology or behavior. In fact, social aspect of
engagement, which referred to the experience of connectedness with other people
who could be colleagues but may be anyone that the work role provides an interface
with (Kahn, 1990), was presented and acknowledged in scholars (Shuck and Wollard,
2010) (Soane et al., 2012). For example, Saks claimed that relationships with
supervisors can be antecedents of engagement. (Saks, 2006; cited by Soane et al.,
2012). Notwithstanding, “yet social engagement had not been conceptualized or
operationalized as a facet of engagement” (Soane et al., 2012) until Soane’s study,
which determined employee engagement consists of 3 facets: Intellectual
Engagement - the extent to which one is intellectually absorbed in work; Affective
Engagement - the extent to which one experiences a state of positive affect relating

to one’s work role; and Social Engagement - the extent to which one is socially
connected with the working environment and shares common values with colleagues.
(Soane et al., 2012).

This paper, with the opinion of author that engagement requires both individual and
social psychological, values and behavioral statements, will follow the definition of
Soane et al., consider employee engagement as collect of 3 facets mentioned above.
All of the term “employee engagement” from now can be understood this way.
<b>Personal engagement </b>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(13)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=13>

(Kahn, 1990). It is easy to see that Kahn at the beginning conceptualized engagement
around the psychological aspects of human beings. In 1992, Kahn proposed an
expansion in theoretical issue of his work. Such expansion delineates the concept of
psychological presence, its dimensions (attentiveness, connectedness, integration,
and focus), and their impact on personal engagement (Michelle R. Simpson, 2009).
At that time, Kahn theorizes some factors that preceding the psychological conditions
of meaningfulness, safety, and availability, consists of various work elements, social
systems, and individual distractions. Beside that conceptualization, his findings
suggested that outcomes of personal engagement may include performance quality
and productivity. It means, when an individual finds his job meaningful, feels safe,
and has the essential resources in their work role both externally and internally,
personal engagement will be led to, and the individual is stated to be ‘‘fully present’’
(Kahn, 1992). In 2004, May et al., based on Kahn’s studies, conducted a research that
proposed an individual engagement model at work. Such research investigated in
Kahn’s three psychological conditions, as well as put in various determinants of
personal engagement such as job enrichment, relations, self-consciousness, activities
or resources (May et al., 2004; Michelle R. Simpson, 2009).

<b>Burnout/Engagement </b>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(14)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=14>

Whereby, a working environment which enabled higher support for professional
practice, would lead to greater engagement (Leiter and Laschinger, 2006).

<b>Work engagement </b>

Schaufeli et al., with the definition of engagement consist of 3 components: vigor,
dedication and absorption, in which vigor and dedication are two opposite
components to burnout dimension (emotional exhaustion and cynicism), developed
the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale in 2003, and used it to test the relationship
between job resources, engagement and turnover intention. The result suggested that
work engagement mediated the link between job resources and turnover intention
(Schaufeli et al., 2002, 2003, 2004). Moreover, since the measurement tool UWES
were developed, “a growing body of research focusing on this construct has evolved”
(Michelle R. Simpson, 2009). Simpson in his research stated that a number of studies
emphasized at the antecedents and/or consequences of work engagement, in which,
the organizational factors were illustrated that having a vital influence in predicting
work engagement, but not individual factors. One of the illustrations is the result of
several studies, which pointed out that job resources significantly predicted work
engagement (Hakenen et al., 2006; Llorens et al., 2006; Mauno et al., 2007; Schaufeli
and Bakker, 2004; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Likewise, researchers found that
employees who have higher level of control, reward, values, or better work life
experience would be more engaged to work (Koyuncu, 2006).

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(15)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=15>

8
<b>Employee engagement </b>

When it comes to employee engagement, with the own developed definition, Harter
had investigated engagement that way and generalized relationship were found
between unit-level employee satisfaction-engagement and the 5 organizational
outcomes: profitability, productivity, customer satisfaction, employee safety,
turnover. Self-efficacy, organizational-based self-esteem, and optimism mediate the
relationship between job resources and work engagement and exhaustion, and
influence the perception of job resources (Xanthopoulou, 2007).

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(16)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=16>

found that employee engagement and its components, such as cognitive, emotional,
behavioral engagement, have partial mediating effects.

Empirically, Saks in 2006 proposed a model of antecedents and consequences of
employee engagement. In that model, employee engagement was categorized into 2
aspects: job engagement and organizational engagement. According to Saks,
antecedents of engagement include job characteristics, perceived organizational
support, perceived supervisor support, rewards and recognition, procedural justice,
distributive justice; and its consequences consist of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, intention to quit, and OCB. However, the results of his study showed
the effects will depends on which variables of antecedents and consequences, and
which types of engagement among 2 types above. It means that there will be a
significant meaning by categorizing employee engagement.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(17)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=17>

strongly positively drive working performance of employees in order to reach greater
organizational outcomes.

Figure 2.1. Summary of antecedents and consequences of employee engagement

(Source: Lee et al., 2017)

Hence, it can be said that which figure 1 show express not only the support for the
work of Saks, but also the contribution for the problem of antecedents and
consequences of employee engagement, through effort of several academic
researchers.

<b>2.2. </b> <b>Employee training </b>

Training from long time ago has been viewed as a completely essential aspects in
making the organization profitable. Landy gave out a definition that job training is “a
set of planned activities on the part of an organization to increase the job knowledge
and skills or to modify the attitudes and social behavior of its members in ways
consistent with the goals of the organization and the requirements of the job” (Landy,

<b>Antecedents </b>
Job resources

Perceived support for
participation in HRD
practices

Training perception
Servant leadership

Transformational leadership
Incivility

Meaningful work

<i>Goal congruence </i>
<i>Social interaction </i>

<b>EMPLOYEE </b>
<b>ENGAGEMENT </b>

<b>Consequences </b>
Work role behavior
Turnover intention
Organizational knowledge

creation
Outcome variables (in-role
performance, turnover
intentions, OCB)
Organizational citizenship
behavior (OCB)

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(18)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=18>

1985). Michel Armstrong in another definition, said that “Training is systematic
development of the knowledge, skills and attitudes required by an individual to
perform adequately a given task or job” (Armstrong, 2001). More recently, Ross
Holland (2012) has stated that training is “any planned activity to transfer or modify
knowledge, skills, and attitude through learning experiences. Personnel may require
training for variety of reasons, including the need to maintain levels of competence
and respond to the demand of changing circumstances and new approaches and
technologies”. Training primarily linked to the improvement and upgradation of the
skills and knowledge of the employees and focuses on employee behavior at large to
improve current and future state of job performance (Malik et al., 2013).

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(19)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=19>

Besides, he recommended that this correlation is proper among variety of
occupational fields.

Employees minds and behavior within organizations are under a considerable impact
of their perception on training (Mohammed, 2017). Beforehand, there was a notation
that more positively employees perceive training activities in their workplace, more
greatly they achieve the level of motivating effect for taking training (Ahmad and
Bakar, 2003). In the same work they said that the investment which organization put
in training will facilitate them to get higher level of commitment from their
employees. It is considered as one of the most vital individual perceptions which
influence to attitudes and behaviors (Guest, 2002). The success of training activities
will strongly depend upon not just employee’s individual personality but also their
perception about its benefits or outcomes (Burke and Hutchins, 2007). Additionally,
employee perception about training was suggested to be varied by different ways due
to the differences in experience and thoughts about its purposes (Nishi, Lepak, and
Schneider, 2008). There has academical demonstration indicated that such perception
has considerable impacts on productivity, performance and level of engagement (Paul
et al., 2003; Kuvass et al., 2009; Salanova, 2005).

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(20)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=20>

the training activities (Mohammed Al-Mzary et al., 2015). The similar effect was also
indicated by works of several other researchers, that training significantly positively
drives employee performance (Elnaga et al., 2013; Aragón, 2014; Amadi, 2014).
Besides, training has been found that it affects employee satisfaction. Chepkosgey et
al., proposed a framework of relationship between various types of training program
and employee satisfaction and working attitude. His work found out that “training

had a great impact on the job satisfaction and retention of the employees” and “is
essential in keeping employees apt in their work so that they can gain satisfaction
from it.” (Chepkosgey et al., 2015). Training has strongly positively influenced to
employee job satisfaction (Taormina, 1999; Garcia, 2005). This statement also was
supported by work of Okechukwu, which proved the hypothesis that the relationship
between training and employee satisfaction was clearly illustrated (Okechukwu,
2017). Additionally, paper of Truitt indicated a significant support for the hypothesis
that “adequate job training is related to positive attitudes about job proficiency and
that having adequate job training is related to positive attitudes about job training”
Training and its positive effects on employee attitude and proficiencies create
long-lasting stakeholders and could serve as the binding force for business success during
trouble times (Truitt, 2011).

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(21)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=21>

also been empirically tested with employee engagement, but mainly just as part of
HRM practices and not so direct (Ahmed et al., 2015). Salanova (2005) has found
that organizational resources, including training factor, had strong impacts on
employee engagement. In another research, Luthan (2010) found that training
intervention significantly increased both the level of performance and psychological
capital, which consists of engagement behavior.

<b>Employee training and employee engagement </b>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(22)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=22>

conducting, he found that all of the components have positive relations with
post-training employee engagement and thus concluded that “employee post-training will be
positively related with post-training employee engagement” (Ahmed et al., 2015).

Figure 2.2. Training components and employee engagement model
(Source: Ahmed et al., 2015)

Although there were number of studies investigated employee training and its
relationship with employee engagement from the past which indicated the positive
impact, recent researches, however, released some inconsistent results. Semwal et al.
(2017) conducted study from a sample of 127 employees in IT companies and
indicated that training vitally contribute to all components of engagement.
Notwithstanding, in the effort to find the impact of training and development on
engagement from Pakistani banking sector, Ezam et al., (2018) failed to reject the

<b>Training Components </b>

Evaluation
Training Components

Training Design
Need Assessment

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(23)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=23>

hypothesis that “training has no significant impact on employees’ engagement”. In
other words, training which employees received might not gather high level of
employee engagement (Ezam et al., 2018). Such results seem to be associated with
the report results provided by Gallup and SHRM mentioned in the first Chapter.
<b>Gap analysis </b>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(24)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=24>

engagement will be tested in this paper, in order to explore their relationship within

Vietnamese workplace.

<i>H1: Employee training positively influence employee engagement. </i>

<b>2.3. </b> <b>Self-efficacy </b>

Definition of self-efficacy is given by Bandura (1977), which considered self-efficacy
as the belief of individuals in their ability to perform a given task and to meet
situational demands. According to Bergh and Theron (1999) cited in Stadler and
Kotze (2006), self-efficacy determines whether a person will pursue a specific goal
and how much effort will be put into attaining the stated objective.

Self-efficacy has three dimensions: magnitude, the level of task difficulty a person
believes she can attain; strength, the conviction regarding magnitude as strong or
weak; and generality, the degree to which the expectation is generalized across
situations (Fred C. Lunenburg, 2011). The higher the level of self-efficacy, the more
likely the individual will be motivated to persevere in attaining the objective, even if
there are obstacles impeding him/her. An employee’s sense of capability influences
his perception, motivation, and performance (Bandura, 1997).

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(25)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=25>

Due to the importance of self-efficacy at work, it is essential to determine what lead
to it. In 1997, Bandura proposed a model of sources of self-efficacy. Accordingly,
there are four key factors that result in individual self-efficacy, including:

<i>Past performance – the most important source which may provide employees the </i>

confidence. It is assumed that workers who have been successful in their previous
job-related work will be more likely to have high self-efficacy.

<i>Vicarious experience – this supposed that one’s self-efficacy can be generated by </i>

seeing other person or co-worker’s success in doing tasks. It is suggested that this
source will work best when ones see others who have similar attributes,
characteristics or abilities.

<i>Verbal persuasion – employees’ level of self-efficacy might be increase by </i>

persuading them that they have great qualification to complete the tasks, based on the
Pygmalion effect, the phenomenon whereby expectation of people can influence the
performance of a particular person. Studies showed that employees may perform
more greatly when their supervisors or managers believe that they can do successfully.
However, the effectiveness of this source may be varied depends on various
conditions (Lunenburg, 2011).

<i>Emotional cues – Bandura argued that if employee find something not suitable in his </i>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(26)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=26>

Figure 2.3. Sources of Self-efficacy
(Source: Bandura, 1997)

It might be realized that all of the sources in this model have strong link with
employee training. For example, training enable employees doing their tasks under
the guidance and supervision of the trainers, hence they could have chance to perform
without considerable mistakes, or have chance to fix the wrong thing immediately.
<i>Thus, past performance would be generated, and it will be even good performance </i>
thank to the training, finally can raise self-efficacy. Besides, training can provide
<i>employee vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and positive feeling about their </i>

ability and the task, via several types of activities such as discussing, observing or
experiencing. Generally, training in the workplace could help employees increase
their perception of self-efficacy.

According to Bandura (1986, 1997), self-efficacy beliefs are characterized as being
task- or domain-specific and are suggested to motivate better performance in several
ways. First, self-efficacy beliefs affect feelings of competency and confidence in
one’s perceived skill to perform a required task, which means they strive to reach
their goals. Next, self-efficacy beliefs motivate better performance by increasing the
sense of control or agency an individual has over one’s life circumstances.
Additionally, self-efficacy beliefs concern a perception that effort will lead to

Past performance

Vicarious experience

Verbal persuasion

Emotional cues

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(27)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=27>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(28)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=28>

is under the mediating impacts of employees’ perception of work and family demand,
and work – life balance. In particular, work – family demand negatively significantly
mediated the link between self-efficacy and work – life balance; but the positive
effect was found with the mediating role of work – life balance which influence the
relationship between self-efficacy and employee engagement (Wen et al., 2017).
Beforehand, in 2007, Xanthopoulou indicated that self-efficacy, as one of three

personal resources, had mediating effect on work engagement. Moreover, a research
found that self-efficacy plays a vital role in predicting the perception of employees
on challenge and hindrance demands, which are strongly related to burnout and
engagement. Particularly, the more self-efficacy employees have, the more they will
engage to work, and conversely (Ventura et al., 2015).

Since the relationship between training and employee engagement are still in concern
and the work of researchers provide inconsistent result about it, the author of this
paper assumes this relationship is under a mediating effect of another variable. When
considering and reviewing self-efficacy as a possible factor, the author found that
related result almost associated with the assumption. Consequently, self-efficacy has
been chosen as mediator and its effect on the focused relationship will be tested in
this study.

<i>H2: Employee’s self-efficacy positively mediates the relationship between employee </i>
<i>training and employee engagement. </i>

<b>2.4. </b> <b>Reward </b>

Due to the diversity of classifications, this study follows the definition of reward
which is the combination of the works of Pitts Collins and Schermerhorn et al., which
in particular considers reward as:

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(29)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=29>

received as internal enjoyment of task performance”; “Extrinsic rewards are valued
outcomes received from an external source or person”. (Schermerhorn et al., 2014).
Motivation, including reward, is an essential component in building employee
engagement and several related aspects, for the final purpose of enhancing
performance and generating organizational outcomes. The Institute for Employment

Studies (IES) identified a model of employee engagement, in which engagement is
the combination of three components: commitment, motivation and organizational
citizenship behavior. According to IES, employee who engage will highly believe in
their organizations and consider their work for making organizations better.

Immediate

management
Communication

Equal opportunities

and fair treatment Engagement

Pay and benefits
Health and safety
Co-operation
Family friendliness

Figure 2.4. Engagement Diagnostic Tool: National Health Service
(Source: Robinson et al., 2004, Institute for Employment Studies)

Previous results of studies provided by numerous researchers and organizations also
show that reward in many types can be an important practice that drive employee
engagement and organizational performances. “Individual performance-related pay
and profit-related bonuses” were referred to 2 of 18 HRD practices which influence
performance and commitment of employees (Guest, 2003). Team rewards and

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(30)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=30>

incentive pay were found as the important factors which are associated with high
performance (Thompson, 2000).

Besides, IES studied the National Health Service in UK and indicated that pay and
benefits, and opportunities, considerably affect employee engagement (Robinson et
al - IES, 2004). Also, in this year, there had a study show that the link between pay
and work-related performance put a significant impact on employees’ intention to
give discretionary effort to work (Corporate Leadership Council, 2004). Engagement
and commitment are also under the strong impacts of fair pay (Heintzman and Marson,
2005). Performance pay is illustrated as one the causes of engagement among top
performers of organization (WorldatWork, 2004). WorldatWork also proposed a
model of total reward system, which indicate multi-directional relationships among
the variables of organizational practices, reward, satisfaction, engagement and
performance, in which the role of total reward is centralized and highly appreciated.

Figure 2.5. Total reward system
(Source: WorldatWork journal, 2008)

Reward, in its relationship with engagement, is also empirically studied by several
researchers. Koyuncu et al. (2006) in the effort to examine potential antecedents and
consequences of work engagement, conducted research with a sample of 286 women
managers and professionals at Turkish bank and found that Work-life experiences,
consists of rewards, predicted work engagement. In determining whether there is a

Organizational
culture

Business
strategy
HR strategy

Total reward strategies

 Compensation

 Benefits

 Work/life

 Performance &
recognition

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(31)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=31>

relationship between rewards, trust and engagement in South African workplace,
reward is tested that can be able to predict trust and engagement (Victor et al., 2016).
Additionally, total reward system is demonstrated that having a small-to-moderate
correlation with employee engagement; and it is difficult to conclude that which
category of total reward had the most effect on engagement (Hoole et al., 2016).
Especially, using both intrinsic and extrinsic reward can help organizations elevate
the rate of employee engagement (Ram and Prabhakar, 2011). Similar result was also
found out even earlier by Roberts and Davenport, that a workplace where reaps more
kinds of rewards will be able to generate engagement among their employees
(Roberts et al., 2002). In a study about the relationship between intrinsic reward and
employee engagement in South African, the result showed that there had a
considerable correlation between the two variables, and such correlation vary under
the impacts of some control variables such as gender or age. Godday et al. (2013)
studied 273 bank employees and found that extrinsic rewards had more impacts
related to job satisfaction than intrinsic rewards. More recently, Khan et al.’s study
(2017) findings expressed that both intrinsic and extrinsic reward positively influence

employee performance; but intrinsic reward has higher effect; and no correlation
between extrinsic and intrinsic reward.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(32)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=32>

themselves. Researchers also suggest that reward which is perceived as fair among
employees and proportional to their contributions and organizational outcomes will
motivate employees to commit, engage and exert in the workplace (Jackson, Rossi,
Hoover, and Johnson, 2012). The more fairly the employee believes they are
rewarded, the greater level of engagement he or she will have in the jobs, and go
further beyond the routine expectations to achieve higher performance and outcomes
(Chebat et al., 2002). In result, reward is indicated as a great important motivation
mechanism in improving employee behavior and attitude, which help support
organizational goals (Haal-Ellis, 2014; Waal and Jansen, 2013).

From the results of various academic works, it may be concluded that the
diversification of employees’ perception on how they are rewarded will differ their
feelings, their engagement, and their attitude and behavior at work, based on their
self-beliefs on ability and contributions, as well as the job and organizational
resources that they perceived. Consequently, reward has been selected to be a
moderator for testing its impacts on the link between employees’ perception of
training and employee engagement.

<i>H3: Reward moderates the impact of training perception on employee engagement, </i>
<i>that this impact will be stronger when employees’ perception of reward becomes </i>
<i>more positive. </i>

<b>2.5. </b> <b>Research questions </b>

This study is conducted primarily aiming at answering below research questions:

 What is the relationship between employee training and employee engagement
in Vietnamese workplace context?

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(33)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=33>

<b>CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY </b>

In this chapter, the conceptual research model and measuring instruments will be
explained in detail. Simultaneously, the author will introduce the research method
used to conduct the study, including data collection method and procedure,
questionnaire design and sampling design.

<b>3.1. </b> <b>Research design </b>

The quantitative research approach is specialized in “testing objective theories by
examining the relationship among variables” (Creswell et al., 2018). These variables
can be respectively statistically measured and analyzed in form of numbers, by using
some kinds of instrument and statistical procedure. The objective of this paper is
explaining the relationship between variables: employee training perception and
employee engagement, and through reviewing previous literatures, the author wants
to explore more such relationship under impact of other factors, driving several
assumptions and hypotheses which are proposed to be tested deductively. Thus, based
on the viewpoint of Creswell et al, the quantitative approach is suitable for conducting
this study. Quantitative methodology has been chosen for using in this paper, in terms
of collecting and analyzing primary data. Besides, background theories would be
completed by secondary data, which were descriptive, explanatory and literature
review.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(34)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=34>

Collected data would be analyzed using SPSS software. The results and analyses will
be discussed later in chapter 3.

<b>3.2. </b> <b>Conceptual research model </b>

<i><b> Variables and measuring instruments </b></i>

In this study, the proposed conceptual research model was a moderated mediation
model with 4 variables: perception on training satisfaction, self-efficacy, reward and
employee engagement. The previous papers were reviewed to describe the variables
and their theoretical characteristics, as well as their related issues. This approach
enables the authors to get and provide better understanding about them within the
available evidences, as well as generate some assumptions in order to proposed the
conceptual framework and hypotheses.

<i><b> Training perception </b></i>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(35)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=35>

reliability or validity (Leung, 2011). Besides, a forum hosted by Infosurv – a research
service organization – found that the 5-point scale is more preferred, with the
agreement of 71% of researchers who participated in. They claimed that the 5-point
scale has nice midpoint that indicates the neutral opinion, which is a “legitimate
opinion that exists among respondents.” The lack of neutral point may lead to the
biases of the respondents, since they are forced to choose either positive or negative
side. (Infosurv, 2006). For those reasons, the author of this paper decided to choose
<b>5-point scale to use for measuring the training satisfaction. </b>

<i><b> Self-efficacy </b></i>

From the late of 20th<sub> century, researchers become keen on the term general </sub>
self-efficacy (GSE), “a more trait-like generality dimension of self-self-efficacy” (Chen et al.,
2001). Judge, Erez et al (1998) gave a definition of GSE that “individuals’ perception
of their ability to perform across a variety of different situations”. Among several
scales developed to measure GSE, the works by Sherer et al (1982) seems to be the
most widely used scale (Chen et al., 2001). Chen’s work developed a new GSE scale
(NGSE) as well as compared his own tool to SGSE through 3 studies and found that
NGSE has higher advances in terms of both reliability and validity, although it is
shorter. Moreover, in the work for comparing 3 of GSE scales including NGSE, the
result indicated a considerable strength of NGSE related to the discrimination,
information of item and relative efficiency (Charles et al., 2006). Hence, the author
decided to use NGSE to measure self-efficacy. The scale includes 8 5-point Likert
scale items, such as “I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I set for myself.”
or “When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will accomplish them.”

<i><b> Reward </b></i>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(36)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=36>

there has 6 items, and 4 items for extrinsic reward (ER). All items are evaluated
follow 5-point Likert scale. The example items are “The tasks I do at work are
enjoyable.” or “My job is meaningful.” for intrinsic type and “It is important for me
to have an external incentive to strive for in order to do a good job.” for extrinsic type.

<i><b> Employee engagement </b></i>

The ISA engagement scale, which is developed by Soane et al (2012), was adopted
to use in this paper. According to Soane and colleagues, there has three conditions
for engagement: focus is provided, activation, and positive affect; simultaneously

there has three dimensions of engagement: intellectual engagement (IE), affective
engagement (AE) and social engagement (SE), as mentioned in the last chapter
(Soane et al., 2012). Thus, Soane’s work developed the ISA engagement scale based
on those proposals. Originally, the scale has 9 items with 7-point Likert scale, divided
equally into 3 above facets of engagement. The examples items are “I focus hard on
my work.”, “I share the same work values as my colleagues.” and “I feel positive
about my work.”. The validation process revealed that ISA engagement scale could
be more beneficial than one of the most widely used instrument for measuring
engagement – UWES – in terms of individual-level behavior prediction (Fletcher and
Robinson, 2014).

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(37)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=37>

<i><b> Conceptual research model </b></i>

Figure 3.1. Conceptual research model

<b>Hypotheses: </b>

H1: Employee training positively influence employee engagement.

H2: Employee’s self-efficacy positively mediates the relationship between employee
training and employee engagement.

H3: Reward moderates the impact of training perception on employee engagement,
that this impact will be stronger when employees’ perception of reward becomes
more positive.

Training
perception

(TR)

Self-efficacy
(SELF)

Employee

engagement (EE)
- IE

- SE
- AE

Reward (RE)
- ER

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(38)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=38>

31
<b>3.3. </b> <b>Population, sample and data collection </b>

<i><b> Questionnaire design and administration </b></i>

After reviewing carefully previous literature, the author designed questionnaire and
constructed the survey based on the studies in the past, which was proved in terms of
reliability and validity of variables. The questionnaire consists of 6 sections:

The first section including 2 yes/no questions, which are used to aim at eliminating
the unsuitable respondents who have not worked or received any training activity
before December 2018.

The second section including some demographic questions, which ask respondents to

provide some individual information about age, gender, highest position at work, and
average income.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(39)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=39>

The pilot test also applied for this questionnaire. 10 respondents were asked for not
only answering the questions but also commenting on the content and the difficulties
they met while the answer. Thank to that, some items were modified for more easily
understanding.

<i><b> Population </b></i>

The population of this research is employees who is currently working or used to
work in the creative industry in organizations located in Vietnam, and received
training activity while working. There is one more condition that the received training
activity happened before December 2018, since the author believe that employees
need time to convert what they gained from training into valuable skills and
knowledge.

<i><b> Sample and data collection process </b></i>

The author uses nonprobability sampling method, “in which respondents are chosen
based on their convenience and availability” (Creswell et al., 2018). Since the author
decided to distribute questionnaire survey online, this method is the most suitable. In
this research, email and social network are selected to use for distributing survey to
gather data from respondents. The survey is designed in online form by using
Google’s platform. Particularly:

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(40)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=40>

Thus, after three weeks, in total there has 152 valid responses were received, and the
author used that data for the analysis of this paper.

<b>3.4. </b> <b>Sample demographics </b>

Table 3.1: Frequency of demographic information of respondents
<b>Number of </b>

<b>respondents </b>

<b>Percentage </b>
<b>(%) </b>
<b>1 </b> <b>Gender </b>

Male
Female
66
87
43.4
56.6
<b>2 </b> <b>Age </b>

Under 25
From 25 to 30
From 31 to 40
From 41 to 50
Over 50
67
68
15

0
2
44.1
44.7
9.9
0
1.3
<b>3 </b> <b>Highest position </b>

Staff
Supervisor
Department manager
Top manager
113
25
8
6
74.3
16.4
5.3
3.9
<b>4 </b> <b>Average income </b>

Less than VND 5,000,000
VND 5,000,000 to 10,000,000
VND 10,000,000 to 20,000,000
Over VND 20,000,000

24
58

53
17
15.8
38.2
34.9
11.2

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(41)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=41>

<b>CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS </b>

The purpose of this chapter is introducing the process of analyzing data collected
through survey questionnaire which described in the previous chapter, using a tool
named SPSS.

<b>4.1. </b> <b>Data preparation </b>

As discussed in chapter 3, data from 153 valid response answers was gathered via
online channel by tool of Google Docs, then was computed into an Excel spreadsheet
file. After that, the data was transfer to SPSS data file for processing and analyzing.
Table 4.1 indicate the coding of variables.

Table 4.1: Coding of variables

Training perception TR

Self-efficacy SELF

Reward RE

Employee engagement EE

<b>4.2. </b> <b>Descriptive statistics </b>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(42)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=42>

Table 4.2: Descriptive statistics of all variables

Construct Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Std.

Deviation

Variance Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std.
Error

Statistic Std.
Error

TRAINGNING
PERCEPTION

TR1 1 5 3.87 .974 .949 -.907 .197 .649 .391

TR2 1 5 3.72 1.093 1.195 -.603 .197 -.381 .391

TR3 1 5 3.86 .924 .853 -.780 .197 .601 .391

TR4 1 5 3.50 1.055 1.113 -.326 .197 -.397 .391

TR5 1 5 3.87 .827 .685 -.602 .197 .416 .391

TR6 1 5 3.66 .870 .756 -.497 .197 .205 .391

TR7 1 5 3.45 .912 .832 -.339 .197 .330 .391

TR8 1 5 3.93 .795 .631 -.764 .197 .992 .391

SELF-EFFICACY

SELF1 2 5 3.48 .789 .622 -.016 .197 -.404 .391

SELF2 1 5 3.70 .877 .769 -.382 .197 .093 .391

SELF3 2 5 3.94 .730 .533 -.426 .197 .178 .391

SELF4 1 5 4.14 .869 .756 -1.254 .197 2.198 .391

SELF5 1 5 3.54 .813 .661 .058 .197 -.111 .391

SELF6 1 5 3.72 .878 .771 -.380 .197 -.191 .391

SELF7 1 5 3.69 .848 .718 -.285 .197 -.131 .391

SELF8 1 5 3.63 .787 .620 -.463 .197 .283 .391

REWARD
- Extrinsic

- Intrinsic

ER1 1 5 3.97 .909 .827 -.845 .197 .607 .391

ER2 1 5 4.26 .826 .682 -1.154 .197 1.428 .391

ER3 1 5 4.11 .855 .731 -.849 .197 .579 .391

ER4 1 5 3.34 1.191 1.419 -.286 .197 -.849 .391

IR1 1 5 3.82 .877 .770 -.658 .197 .474 .391

IR2 1 5 3.67 .852 .726 -.613 .197 .746 .391

IR3 2 5 4.08 .768 .590 -.580 .197 .090 .391

IR4 1 5 3.60 .863 .745 -.498 .197 .461 .391

IR5 1 5 3.34 .935 .873 -.325 .197 -.107 .391

IR6 1 5 3.52 .996 .993 -.543 .197 .011 .391

EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT
- Intellectual
- Social
- Affective

IE1 2 5 4.14 .701 .491 -.549 .197 .373 .391

IE2 1 5 3.66 .815 .664 -.038 .197 -.160 .391

IE3 2 5 3.91 .718 .516 -.307 .197 -.010 .391

SE1 1 5 3.48 .970 .940 -.297 .197 -.238 .391

SE2 1 5 3.47 .969 .940 -.278 .197 -.244 .391

SE3 1 5 3.51 .935 .874 -.408 .197 .250 .391

AE1 1 5 3.76 .761 .579 -.576 .197 .764 .391

AE2 1 5 3.46 .788 .621 -.280 .197 -.033 .391

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(43)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=43>

36
<b>4.3. </b> <b>Reliability and validity </b>

<i><b>4.3.1. Reliability </b></i>

At first, the reliability of data was examined, in order to check the correlation between
items which measure one variable. The level of reliability for items is represented by
the Cronbach alpha co-efficient values. Since the reward perception and employee
engagement were divided into 2 and 3 sub-dimensions respectively, the Cronbach’s
alpha was also tested for each sub-variable. The test of reliability is processed using
SPSS and the overall result is as below:

Table 4.3: Overall Cronbach’s alpha for each variable and sub-variable

<b>Variable </b> <b>No. of item </b> <b>Acceptable level </b> <b>Cronbach’s alpha </b>

<b>TR </b> 8 0.6 0.866

<b>SELF </b> 8 0.6 0.911

<b>ER </b> 4 0.6 0.812

<b>IR </b> 6 0.6 0.820

<b>IE </b> 3 0.6 0.811

<b>SE </b> 3 0.6 0.766

<b>AE </b> 3 0.6 0.848

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(44)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=44>

Table 4.4: Item-total statistics for Intrinsic reward variable

Hence, after processing reliability test, there was one item deleted, and the total
number of items become 34.

<i><b>4.3.2. Validity </b></i>

For testing the validity of items, the author used Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin (KMO) and
Bartlett’s test, with the principle components method of extraction and varimax
rotation. According to the result, the KMO measure of sampling adequacy is equal to
0.860 and sig. value is 0.000, indicating the adequacy for further analysis.
Additionally, the rotated component matrix shows that items are suitable for
measuring variables with the indicators greater than 0.5.

Scale Mean if
Item Deleted

Scale Variance
if Item
Deleted

Corrected
Item-Total
Correlation

Cronbach's
Alpha if Item

Deleted

IR1 18.20 12.163 <b>.308 </b> .846

IR2 18.36 10.575 .635 .781

IR3 17.95 11.136 .604 .789

IR4 18.43 9.915 .765 .752

IR5 18.69 9.844 .700 .765

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(45)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=45>

Table 4.5: Rotated component matrix

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SELF8 .832

SELF2 .828

SELF6 .807

SELF5 .785

SELF7 .764

SELF3 .675

SELF4 .618

SELF1 .564

TR5 .795

TR2 .740

TR6 .713

TR8 .684

TR7 .679

TR3 .678

TR1 .632

TR4 .630

IR4 .793

IR2 .766

IR5 .752

IR3 .641

IR6 .593

ER2 .810

ER3 .801

ER1 .785

ER4 .768

IE3 .749

IE1 .700

IE2 .700

AE2 .747

AE1 .734

AE3 .613

SE1 .744

SE2 .694

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(46)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=46>

39
<b>4.4. </b> <b>Pearson correlation </b>

Table 4.6: Pearson correlation matrix

The result of Pearson correlation analysis have been indicated in table 4.6. According
to the result, the correlations between the dependent variable – employee engagement
and other variables are significant with the considerable correlation coefficient of
greater than 0.4. This illustrates it is statistically reasonable to select those variables
for testing their impact on employee engagement. Furthermore, all the variables has
correlation with each other with the 2-tailed significance level at 0.01, indicating that
the chosen variables for testing mediating and moderating effect are acceptable.
<b>4.5. </b> <b>Regression analysis and hypotheses testing </b>

<i>H1: Employee training positively influence employee engagement. </i>

Regression analysis was explored in order to examine the relationship between
training perception, employee engagement under the impact of perception on
self-efficacy and reward. First, for testing hypothesis “H1: Employee training positively
influence employee engagement.” the regression analysis would be applied for only

Training Self-efficacy Reward Engagement

Training

Pearson Correlation 1 .347** <sub>.316</sub>** <sub>.405</sub>**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 152 152 152 152

Self-efficacy

Pearson Correlation .347** <sub>1 </sub> <sub>.461</sub>** <sub>.578</sub>**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 152 152 152 152

Reward

Pearson Correlation .316** <sub>.461</sub>** <sub>1 </sub> <sub>.554</sub>**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 152 152 152 152

Engagement

Pearson Correlation .405** <sub>.578</sub>** <sub>.554</sub>** <sub>1 </sub>

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000

N 152 152 152 152

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(47)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=47>

two variables: training perception and employee engagement. Result of the analysis
is indicated in the table below:

Table 4.7: Regression analysis

(Dependent variable: Employee Engagement)

<i><b>Summary </b></i>
<i><b>of Model </b></i>

Model R R square Adjusted R

square
Std.
Error of
the
Estimate

Durbin-Watson

.405 .164 .159 .51823 2.162

<i><b>ANOVA </b></i>

Model Sum of

Squares

df Mean

Square

F Sig.

Regression 7.910 1 150 29.453 .000

Residual 40.284 145 .269

Total 48.194 151

<i><b>Model </b></i>

Unstandardized
Coefficients

Standardized
Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

(Constant) 2.431 .238 10.231 .000

TRAINING .340 .063 .405 5.427 .000

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(48)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=48>

<i>H2: Employee’s self-efficacy positively mediates the relationship between employee </i>
<i>training and employee engagement. </i>

This study, as mentioned in the above chapter, gives effort to investigate the
mediating effect of self-efficacy to the relationship between training perception and
employee engagement using Baron and Kenny (1986) and method for analyzing
mediation process. Self-efficacy here is called mediating variable or mediator.
According to those authors, a mediation process may occur under some conditions:
(a) The independent variable significantly affects the mediator.

(b) The independent variable directly significantly affects the dependent variable
when not under the control of the mediator.

(d) The effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable reduce when
their relationship is under the control of the mediator.

When mediation happens, if the effect of the independent variable is totally
eliminated under the control of the mediator, then it is called perfect mediation;
otherwise, it is call partial mediation.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(49)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=49>

Table 4.8: Mediation analysis

(Dependent variable: Employee engagement; Mediator: Self-efficacy)

<b>(1) Outcome variable: Self-efficacy </b>

<i><b>Summary of model </b></i>

R R-square F df1 df2 p
.347 .120 20.498 1.000 150.000 0.000

<i><b>Model </b></i>

<i>(standardized coefficient </i>
<i>of TR is .347) </i>

coeff s.e t p LLIC ULIC
Constant 2.485 .279 8.896 .000 1.933 3.037
TR .334 .074 4.528 .000 .188 .479

<b>(2) Outcome variable: Employee engagement </b>

<i><b>Summary of model </b></i>

<b>R </b> <b>R-square </b> <b>F </b> <b>df1 </b> <b>df2 </b> p
.618 .328 45.992 2.000 149.000 .000

<i><b>Model </b></i>

<i>(Standardized coefficients </i>
<i>of TR is .233, SELF is.497) </i>

coeff s.e t p LLIC ULIC
<b>Constant </b> 1.352 .253 5.337 .000 .852 1.853
TR .195 .058 3.389 .001 .081 .309
SELF .434 .060 7.241 .000 .316 .552
According to the result (1), when testing the effect of training perception on
self-efficacy, p-value is lower than 0.005, meaning that there has a statistically meaningful
relationship between those two variables with 95% confidence interval, and with
positive coefficient value, thus responses to condition (a). The condition (b) is
consistent with the first regression analysis result in testing H1, that training
perception has positive impact on employee engagement.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(50)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=50>

engagement with 95% confidence interval, and the impact from the mediator is
considerable, thus responses to condition (c). Besides, the coefficient for training
perception under the control of the mediator decrease from 0.340 to 0.195, indicating
that its effect on the independent variable has reduced, associated with condition (d).
From the analysis above, it can be statistically concluded that self-efficacy positively
partially mediates the relationship between training perception and employee
engagement. Hence, the hypothesis H2 is supported.

<i>H3: Reward moderates the impact of training perception on employee engagement, </i>
<i>that this impact will be stronger when employees’ perception of reward becomes </i>
<i>more positive. </i>

Figure 4.1. Statistical moderating model
(Source: Baron and Kenny, 1986)

This study tried to explore the moderating effect of reward on the relationship
between training perception and employee engagement while self-efficacy playing

the role of a mediator. This means the model become moderated mediation model.
Generally, a moderator may be qualitative or quantitative variable that influence the

Predictor

Predictor
x
Moderator

Moderator Outcome

variable
c

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(51)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=51>

direction and/or strength of the relationship between predictor and outcome variable
(Baron and Kenny, 1986). The interaction of moderator occurs when the moderator
significantly affects the outcome variable, and the product of the moderator and
predictor (as interaction variable) also significantly affects the outcome variable (See
Figure 4.1).

In this study, the author intended to test the effect of reward in general, regardless it
is contained of two components as definition. The purpose of this intention is to see
the synthetic impact of the perception of reward on the focusing relationship, not the
separate intrinsic or extrinsic reward in particular. Thus, the author has combine the
two dimensions of the moderating variable into one, by using super scale, which
calculate the mean of each component, and then calculate the average value of those

two means. The moderated mediation was analyzed using Process v3. The result is
shown as below:

Table 4.9: Moderation analysis

<b>(3) Outcome variable: Employee engagement </b>

<i><b>Summary of model </b></i>

<b>R </b> <b>R-square </b> <b>F </b> <b>df1 </b> <b>df2 </b> <b>p </b>

.605 .366 28.532 3.000 148.000 .000

<i><b>Model </b></i>

<b>coeff </b> <b>s.e </b> <b>t </b> <b>p </b> <b>LLIC </b> <b>ULIC </b>

<b>Constant </b> 3.696 .038 98.506 .000 3.622 3.770

<b>TR </b> .219 .059 3.732 .000 .103 .335

<b>RE </b> .491 .073 6.781 .000 .348 .635

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(52)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=52>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(53)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=53>

<b>CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION </b>

In this final chapter, the author summarizes the analysis and hypothesis testing results,
in comparison with previous literature to point out the difference or similarities. After
that, the author interprets the result and discusses the implications and limitation,
based on the context of the study.

<b>5.1. </b> <b>Research findings </b>

After analyzing collected data, the result was provided in the previous chapter,
indicate the support for 2 in total of 3 hypotheses. Summary of the result is shown as
below:

Table 5.1: Summary of the results of hypotheses testing

<b>Hypotheses </b> <b>Results </b>

Employee training positively influence employee engagement. Supported
Employee’s self-efficacy positively mediates the relationship

between employee training and employee engagement.

Supported

Reward moderates the impact of training perception on
employee engagement, that this impact will be stronger when
employees’ perception of reward becomes more positive.

Not supported

<i>Conclusion 1: Training has positive significant impact on employee engagement. </i>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(54)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=54>

respondents. People in this level may find that job-related training is necessary for
them for enhancing their ability and skills for doing job well. Additionally, almost
respondents are in young age, who may still need to learn more the skills and
knowledge which can be applicable for their job, in order to be more professional and
efficient in working, as well as to improve their performance. Thus, they find training
sessions provided by companies is significantly important for them, and it can engage
them to the work essentially. Those reasons may explain why this study given out
that training vitally positively effect employee engagement – which is an opposite
result to Ezam’s work. Another reason may come from the nature of the industry. In
the banking industry, people usually work and follow a formal process with several
regulations and rules. Meanwhile, employees in the creative industry often work
flexibly and freely as long as they can generate and give out new innovative ideas.
Although this helps them for facilitating their creativity, people may be driven to
distraction. Furthermore, such flexibility and freedom might affect negatively the
shared goals and values among employees. Those potential consequences shall
influence considerably to their intellectual engagement and social engagement.
Training activity may help people to avoid such consequences. Not only helping them
to get knowledge and improve skills and abilities, it will also draw their attention and
concentration to their tasks or work, as well as the common values among employees
and organization. Thus, if employees perceive positively about the training received,
their level of engagement should raise.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(55)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=55>

training perception and some other factors, indicating that the direct relationship from
training to engagement was confirmed.

This result indicates the essential role of training activity in the workplace in
Vietnamese context. Employees need training to increase their knowledge and skills,
as well as intensive understanding about the tasks and work in their organization. On
the reversed way, organizations need to provide training activity for educating their
employees to be more effective and efficient in work and to be able to develop in the
purpose of adapting new responsibilities, new challenges or new positions. Besides,
employee satisfaction and perception on training activity they received is also
significant to employers, since it is an important factor which directly considerably
affects the behavior, attitude and emotion of employee, which are considered as
employee engagement. Since level of employee engagement lead to several results
that influence organizational performance and outcomes, it is highly recommended
that organizations should pay a vital attention on the antecedents of engagement, and
training is not the exception.

<i>Conclusion 2: Self-efficacy play a role as a mediator in the relationship between </i>
<i>training and employee engagement. </i>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(56)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=56>

knowledge, skills more easily and effectively. The satisfaction about organizational
support, the amount, the applicability which fit their needs might help them feel that
they are getting better gradually, thus not just improve their actual ability but also
their confidence about such ability in doing work. That may be the reason which
explain the role of self-efficacy as a mediator between training perception and
employee engagement.

Based on this finding, it can be seen that employee self-efficacy, as one of personal
resources, place a great importance to the HR activities in an organization. Due to its
mediating effect, there would be a challenge for organization in general and HR
department in particular that how to raise not just the employee satisfaction of training,

but also the level of self-efficacy among them, in order to gather higher engagement.

<i>Conclusion 3: With collected data, reward is not able to be concluded that it has </i>
<i>moderating effect on the relationship between training perception and employee </i>
<i>engagement. </i>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(57)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=57>

characteristics of research sample. First, the sample size of this study is 152, which
might be not enough for expressing more accurately the nature of moderating effect,
which is indicated by analyzing the impact of the product of two different variables
on another one. Since the result of multiplying two variables might be varied
significantly, it may need larger sample size to represent the population, as well as to
have better statistical analysis. Second, nearly 45% of the respondents is in the age of
under 25, and the similar proportion for the age from 25 to 30, estimating a large
proportion of young generation in the research sample. The work of Vianen et al.
(2011) also pointed out the similar thing, that younger employees has higher training
and development willingness in comparison with older ones. Additionally, Inceoglu
et al. (2012) found out that for employees who were in young generation is more
highly motivated by career progression, including training activity. People in this age
often may not have much experience, but have quite high level of confidence and
willingness to learn. They might naturally want to work more to get experience and
knowledge, thus engage more to the work. This may explain the mediation model
with the mediating effect of self-efficacy between training and engagement.
Otherwise, this may explain why reward does not interact significantly in the
involvement with the predictor – training, to the outcome variable – engagement.
Accordingly, those employees may have less expectation on the reward they can
receive, but focus more on improving their ability at the workplace. Hence, their
perceived satisfaction of the reward might not strong enough to vary the speed or
strength of the impact between employees’ perception of training and employee

engagement as predictor and outcome variable respectively, in the assumed
moderation model.

<b>5.2. </b> <b>Contribution and implication </b>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(58)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=58>

managerial level and age may result in the change in such relationship, particularly it
may cause the impact become insignificant. Furthermore, this study has successfully
proposed a suitable theoretical mediation framework, between 3 variables of training,
self-efficacy and employee engagement, for the social and management research in
terms of HRM and organizational behavior, based on reviewing of several related
literature to identify the considerable factors, as well as collecting and analyzing the
data to prove the relationships. This framework not just indicates that self-efficacy
partially positively mediates the link between training and employee engagement, but
also has confirmed several previous works which estimated the essential effect of
training on self-efficacy, and effect of self-efficacy on employee engagement
separately. Thus, researchers can use this framework for theoretically reviewing for
future studies about related relationships or variables.

For practical contribution, one significant finding of this paper is that the perception
and satisfaction of employee on training can facilitate employee engagement, which
lead to better business performance and outcomes. The study has confirmed several
previous literatures on both training and engagement terms, as well as researches
provided by HRM organizations. Besides, this study has found out the mediating
effect of self-efficacy on such relationship, referred to important aspects of
antecedents and consequences of this personal resource, which studied separately by
different researchers. The study has also gained some implications for practical
business in creative industry in Vietnamese context.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(59)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=59>

only the needs of organization, but also the demand of employee about the useful
content, suitable quantity, careful schedule and purposes, or professional
development opportunity. Additionally, training should be considered and held at any
level within workplace, including teams, departments, and organizational level, under
variety of forms, activities and methods.

Furthermore, employer should focus on self-efficacy as a core competency for their
employee particularly and HRM strategic development generally. Although
self-efficacy is one of personal resources, companies can research more about the sources
of it and facilitate their employee to practices those activities, including training, for
gather higher level of self-efficacy. For example, training session should be designed
to not just aim at improving some abilities related to specific tasks or works, but for
enhancing the confidence of employee through different soft-skills and abilities
learned by different approach. Employee might be assigned more difficult but
reachable task, and be provided the guidance and encouragement from experienced
colleagues or supervisors. They then may become more confident that they can do
the task well, hence increase their self-efficacy. In addition, recruiter should consider
self-efficacy as one important for the potential candidates in order to fill any available
positions in the organization. Generally, company should design some approaches to
test candidate’s self-efficacy, aiming at recruiting the candidates who has high
confidence with their abilities, or having suitable training and development process
for ones they recruit to enhance their level of self-efficacy.

<b>5.3. </b> <b>Limitation and future research </b>

This study has number of limitations that may suggest some further potentials for
future research.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(60)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=60>

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(61)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=61>

<b>REFERENCES </b>

Ahmad, K.Z., & Bakar, R.A., 2003. The Association between Training and
Organizational Commitment among White Collar Workers in Malaysia.
International Journal of Training and Development, 7(3), 166-185.

Ahmed, Phulpot, Umrani and Abbas, 2015. Diving Deep in Employee Training to
Understand Employee Engagement. Business and Economic Journal.

Aidah Nassazi, 2013. Effects of training on Employee performance. Evidence from
Uganda. Vaasan Ammattikorkeakoulu University of Applied Sciences.

Amir Elnaga, Amen Imran, 2013. The Effect of Training on Employee Performance.
European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 5, No. 4.

Andrew F. Hayes (2015). An Index and Test of Linear Moderated Mediation,
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 50:1, 1-22.

Annelies E. M. Van Vianen, Betty A. G. W. Dalhoeven and Irene E. De Pater., 2011.
Aging and training and development willingness: Employee and supervisor
mindsets. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 32, 226–247 (2011).

Armstrong, M., & Stephens, T., 2005. A handbook of employee reward management
and practice. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Bandura, A., 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A., 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American

Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura, A., 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive
theory. New York NY: Prentice Hall.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(62)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=62>

Bård Kuvaas and Anders Dysvik, 2009. Perceived investment in employee
development, intrinsic motivation and work performance. Human Resource
Management Journal, Vol 19, no 3, 2009, pages 217–236.

Bård Kuvaas, Robert Buch, Antoinette Weibel, Anders Dysvik, Christina G.L.
Nerstad, 2017. Do intrinsic and extrinsic motivation relate differently to
employee outcomes? Journal of Economic Psychology 61 (2017) 244–258.
Bartlett, K. R., 2001. The relationship between training and organizational

commitment: A study in the health care field. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 12(4), 335–352.

Bergh, Z.C. & Theron, A.L., 1999. Psychology in the work context. Cape Town:
Oxford University Press South Africa.

Brent Ruge, 2011. Employee Engagement & Retention in Vietnam - Summary.
Towers Watson.

Burke, L., & Hutchins, H., 2007. Training Transfer: An Integrative Literature Review.
Human Resources Development Review, 6(3), 263-296.

Charles Scherbaum, Yochi Cohen-Charash, Charash Michael, J Kern, 2006.
Measuring General Self-Efficacy: A Comparison of Three Measures Using Item
Response Theory. Educational and Psychological Measurement
66(6):1047-1063.

Chebat, J.C., Babin, B., & Kollias, P., 2002. What makes contact employees perform?
Reactions to employee perceptions of managerial practices. International Journal
of Bank Marketing, 20(7), 325-332.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(63)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=63>

applied psychology: Social issues and questions (pp. 135–149). Washington, DC:
Taylor & Francis.

Chumo Sylvia Chepkosgey, Gregory S. Namusonge, William Sakataka, Duncan
Nyakundi Nyaberi, Aloys Nyagechi, 2015. The Effect of On-the –Job-Training
Practice on Employee Satisfaction at Kapsara Tea Factory. International Journal
of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 10.

Corporate Leadership Council, 2004. Driving performance and retention through
employee engagement, Washington, Corporate Executive Board.

D. Hall-Ellis Sylvia, 2014. Reward systems promote high-performance work teams
achieving library mission. The Bottom Line, Vol. 27 Issue: 2, 66-69.

David A. Decenzo, Stephen P. Robbins and Susan L Verhulst, 2010. Human resource
Management, International Student Version, 8: 182.

De Clercq, D., Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., & Matsyborska, G., 2014. Servant
leadership and work engagement: The contingency effects of leader–follower

social capital. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 183–212.

Debra L. Truitt, 2011. The Effect of Training and Development on Employee Attitude
as it Relates to Training and Work Proficiency. SAGE Open.

Deci, E. L., 1972. The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls
on intrinsic motivation. Organizational behavior and human performance, 8(2),
217-229.

Demerouti E, Cropanzano R, Bakker A, Leiter M, 2010. From thought to action:
Employee work engagement and job performance. Work engagement: A
handbook of essential theory and research 147-163.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(64)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=64>

Dysvik, A., Kuvaas, B., & Gagné, M. (2013). An investigation of the unique,
synergistic, and balanced relationships between basic psychological needs and
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(5), 1050–1064.
Emma Soane, Catherine Truss, Kerstin Alfes, Amanda Shantz, Chris Rees& Mark

Gatenby, 2012. Development and application of a new measure of employee
engagement: the ISA Engagement Scale, Human Resource Development
International, 15:5, 529-547.

Entwistle, N., 1988. Motivational factors in students‟ approaches to learning. In
Learning strategies and learning styles, pp. 21-51

Eunice Jane Amadi, 2014. The Effect of Training and Development on Employees’
Performance; At Safaricom Limited Call Centre. University of Nairobi.

Fletcher, L., 2015. Training perceptions, engagement, and performance: Comparing
work engagement and personal role engagement. Human Resource Development
International.

Frayne CA, Geringer JM, 2000. Self-management training for improving job
performance: A field experiment involving salespeople. Journal of Applied
Psychology 85: 361-372.

Fred C. Lunenburg, 2011. Self-Efficacy in the Workplace: Implications for
Motivation and Performance. International Journal of Management, Business,
And Administration, Vol. 14, No. 1.

Gallup Organization, 2005. Employee Engagement: The Engagement side of the
Human sigma Equation. Gallup Inc.

Gallup Organization, 2017. State of Global Workplace. Gallup Inc.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(65)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=65>

Gilad Chen, Stanley M. Gully and Dov Eden, 2001. Validation of a New General
Self-Efficacy Scale. Organizational Research Methods 2001; 4; 62.

Godday Orziemgbe Oriarewo, Kenneth Chukwujioke Agbim, Zechariahs Benapugha
Owutuamor, 2013. Job Rewards as Correlates of Job Satisfaction: Empirical
Evidence from the Nigerian Banking Sector. The International Journal of
Engineering and Science (IJES), Volume 2, Issue 8, p. 62-68.

Guest David E., Jonathan Michie, Neil Conway and Maura Sheehan, 2003. ‘Human
resource management and corporate performance in the UK.’ British Journal of
Industrial Relations. June: 291–314.

Guest, D. E., & Conway, N., 2002. Communicating the psychological contract: an
employer perspective. Human resource management journal, 12(2), 22-38.
Guthrie, J.P., 2001, High-involvement work practices, turnover, and productivity:

evidence from New Zealand, Academy of Management Journal, 44, 1: 180-190.
Haider, M., Aamir, A., Hamid, A.A., & Hashim, M., 2015. A literature analysis on
the importance of non-fnancial rewards for employees’ job satsfacton. Abasyn
Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 341–354.

Hakanen, J., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E., 2005. How dentists cope with their job
demands and stay engaged: the moderating role of job resources. European
Journal of Oral Sciences 113, 487–497.

Hakenen, J.J., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., 2006. Burnout and work engagement
among teachers. Journal of School Psychology 43, 495–513.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(66)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=66>

Heintzman and Marson, 2005 People, Service and Trust: Is there a public sector
service value chain? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 71(4),
549– 575.

Hoole, C., & Hotz, G., 2016. The impact of a total reward system of work
engagement.SA Journal of Industrial Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir
Bedryfsielkunde, 42(1), a1317.

Ilke Inceoglu, Jesse Segers and Dave Bartram., 2012. Age-related Differences in
Work Motivation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology
(2012), 85, 300–329.

Infosurv White Paper, 5-point vs. 6-point Likert Scales. Infosurv Company.

Jackson, E.M., Rossi, M.E., Hoover, E.R., & Johnson, R.E., 2012. Relationships of
leader reward behaviour with employee behaviour. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 33(7), 646-661.

John Dawes, 2012. Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of
Scale Points Used? An Experiment Using 5 Point, 7 Point and 10 Point Scales.
International Journal of Market Research 50(1).

John W. Creswell, J. David Creswell, 2018. Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th edition. SAGE Edge.

Kahn, W. A., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and
disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724.

Kahn, W.A., 1992. To be fully there: psychological presence at work. Human
Relations 45 (4), 321–349.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(67)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=67>

Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J., Fiksenbaum, L., 2006. Work engagement among women
managers and professionals in a Turkish bank: potential antecedents and
consequences. Equal Opportunities International 25, 299–310.

Kuvaas, B. (2006). Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation:
The roles of pay administration and pay level. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
27(3), 365–385.

Kuvaas, B., & Dysvik, A. (2009). Perceived investment in employee development,
intrinsic motivation, and work performance. Human Resource Management
Journal, 19(3), 217–236.

Kuvaas, B., 2008. An exploration of how the employee–organization relationship
affects the linkage between perception of developmental human resource
practices and employee outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 45(1), 1-25.
Landy, F. J., 1985. Psychology of work behavior. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Laschinger, H.K.S., Finegan, J., 2005. Empowering nurses for engagement and health

in hospital settings. Journal of Nursing Administration 35 (10), 439–449.

Laschinger, H.K.S., Leiter, M.P., 2006. The impact of nursing work environments on
patient safety outcomes: the mediating role of burnout/engagement. The Journal
of Nursing Administration 36 (5), 259–267.

Laura Lorente Prieto, 2009. Exploring the Power of Self-efficacy at Work: Some
Empirical Studies from the Social Cognitive Perspective. Universitat Jaume.
Leiter, M.P., Maslach, C., 2004. Areas of worklife: a structured approach to

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(68)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=68>

Liat Eldor, Eran Vigoda-Gadot, 2017. The nature of employee engagement:
rethinking the employee–organization relationship. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management. Vol. 28, No. 3, 526–552.

Llorens, S., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., 2006. Testing the
robustness of the job demands–resources model. International Journal of Stress
Management 13, 378–391.

Llorens, S., García, M., & Salanova, M. (2005). Burnout as a consequence of efficacy
crisis: A longitudinal study in secondary school teachers. Revista de Psicolog´ıa
del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones, 21, 55–70.

Llorens, S., Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2007). Does a positive
gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in
Human Behavior, 23, 825–841.

Loreto R. Prieto, Steven A. Meyers, 1999. Effects of Training and Supervision on the
Self-Efficacy of Psychology Graduate Teaching Assistants. Teaching of
Psychology, Volume 26, 1999 – Issue 4, p. 264 – 266.

Luke Fletcher, Dilys Robinson, 2014. Measuring and Understanding Engagement.
Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice, Chapter: 15. Routledge Publisher.
Luthans F, Avey JB, Avolio BJ, Peterson SJ, 2010. The development and resulting

performance impact of positive psychological capital. Human Resource
Development Quarterly 21: 41-67.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(69)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=69>

Macey WH, Schneider B, 2008. Engaged in engagement: we are delighted we did it,
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 76–83.

Macey WH, Schneider B, 2008. The meaning of employee engagement, Industrial
and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30.

Maister, D.H., 2001, Practice what you preach. What managers must do to create a
high achievement culture, Free Press, New York

Malik Faisal Azeem, Rubina and Adil Tahir Paracha, 2013. Connecting Training and
Development with Employee Engagement: How Does it Matter? World Applied
Sciences Journal 28 (5): 696-703.

Manisha Semwal, Atul Dhyani, 2017. Impact of Employees Training and Career
Development on Their Engagement: A Study Using OCM And UWES
Measurement Scales. NICE Journal of Business, Vol. 12, No. 1.

María Isabel Barba Aragón, Daniel Jiménez Jiménez, Raquel Sanz Valle, 2014.
Training and performance: The mediating role of organizational learning. BRQ
Business Research Quarterly (2014) 17, 161-173.

Mary Uhl-Bien, John R. Schermerhorn, Jr., Richard N. Osborn, 2014. Organizational
Behavior. John Wiley & Sons.

Maslach, C., Leiter, M., 1997. The Truth About Burnout. Jossey Bass, San Francisco.
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., Ruokolainen, M., 2007. Job demands and resources as
antecedents of work engagement: a longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational
Behavior 70, 149–171.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(70)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=70>

Mercedes Ventura, Marisa Salanova, Susana Llorens, 2015. Professional
Self-Efficacy as a Predictor of Burnout and Engagement: The Role of Challenge and
Hindrance Demands. The Journal of Psychology, 2015, 149(3), 277–302.

Michel Armstrong, 2001. A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice.
Kogan Page, 8th Editon.

Michelle R. Simpson, 2009. Engagement at work: A review of the literature.

International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1012–1024.

Mike Johnson, 2004. The New Rules of Engagement. CIPD Publishing

Mohammed S. Alamri1 & Thamir I. Al-Duhaim, 2017. Employees Perception of
Training and Its Relationship with Organizational Commitment among the
Employees Working at Saudi Industrial Development Fund. International Journal
of Business Administration, Vol. 8, No. 2.

Ngo Thanh Ngan, 2018. Xếp hạng của Việt Nam trên bản đồ thế giới về Employee

Engagement. Retrieve date: 14/08/2018.

Nishii, L. H., Lepak, D. P. & Schneider, B., 2008. Employee attributions of the why
of HR practices: Their effects on employee attitudes and behaviors, and customer
satisfaction. Personnel Psychology, 61, 503–545.

Nosheen Khan, Hafiz Waqas, Rizwan Muneer, 2017. Impact of Rewards (Intrinsic
and extrinsic) on Employee Performance: With Special Reference to Courier
Companies of City Faisalabad, Pakistan. International Journal of Management
Excellence, Volume 8, No.2.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(71)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=71>

Palmen AMJW, 2013. Behavioral interventions in adolescents and young adults with
high-functioning ASD: Improvement, generalization, and maintenance of
adaptive skills: UB Nijmegen.

Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of
proactive behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652.

Patrick, J., 2000. Training. In N. Chmiel (Ed.), Introduction to work and
organizational psychology, 100–125. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Paul, A. K. and R. N. Anantharaman. 2003. “Impact of People Management Practices
on Organizational Performance: Analysis of a Causal Model.” The International
Journal of Human Resource Management 14 (7): 1246-1266.

Peter Reilly Duncan Brown, 2008. Employee Engagement What is the Relationship
with Reward Management? WorldatWork journal.

Peterson, S. J., & Byron, K. (2008). Exploring the role of hope in job performance:
Results from four studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 785–803.
Pitts, Collins. 1995, Motivating Your Organization, 1st edition. McGraw-Hill

International, p187.

Quratulain Ezam, Nawaz Ahmad, Syed Irfan Hyder, 2018. Impact of Training and
Development on Employees' Engagement: Empirical Evidence from Pakistani
Banking Sector. Conference paper, Innovation Management and Education
Excellence through Vision 2020.

Ram, P., & Prabhakar, G., 2011. Antecedent HRM practces for organizational
commitment. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(2), 55–62.
Rich, B. L., LePine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(72)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=72>

Richardsen, A.M., Burke, R.J., Martinussen, M., 2006. Work and health outcomes
among police officers: the mediating role of police cynicism and engagement.
International Journal of Stress Management 13, 555–574.

Roberts, D.R., & Davenport, T.O., 2002. Job engagement: Why it’s important and
how to improve it. Employment Relatons Today, 29(3), 21–29.

Robinson D, S. Perryman and S. Hayday, 2004. Research Networks Report 408: “The
drivers of employee engagement”. The Institute for Employment Studies.

Ross Holland, 2012. Designing and Implementing Training Programs. MDS-3:
Managing Access to Medicines and Health Technologies. Arlington, VA:
Management Sciences for Health.

Rowden, R. W., & Conine Jr., C. T., 2003. The relationship between workplace
learning and job satisfaction in U.S. small commercial banks. In S. A. Lynham
& T. M. Egan (Eds.), AHRD 2003 Conference Proceedings 1, 459–466.

Ruben M. Baron and David A. Kenny, The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction
in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical
Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6):1173-1182.
Rungson Chomeya, 2010. Quality of Psychology Test Between Likert Scale 5 and 6

Points. Journal of Social Sciences 6 (3): 399-403.

Sachdev, S. B., & Verma, H. V., 2004. Relative importance of service quality
dimensions: A multisectoral study. Journal of Service Research 4(1).

Sahinidis AG, Bouris J, 2008. Employee perceived training effectiveness relationship

to employee attitudes. Journal of European Industrial Training 32: 63-76.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(73)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=73>

Salanova M, Agut S, Peiró JM, 2005. Linking organizational resources and work
engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of
service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 1217.

Salanova, M., Cifre, E., Llorens, S., Mart´ınez, I. M., & Lorente, L. (2011).
Psychosocial risks and positive factors among construction workers. In C.
Cooper, R. Burke, & S. Clarke (Eds.), Occupational health and safety:
Psychological and behavioral aspects of risk (pp. 295–320). Aldershot, UK:
Gower.

Sarti, D., 2014. Job resources as antecedents of engagement at work: Evidence from
a long-term care setting. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 213–
237.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., 2003. Utrecht work engagement scale: version 1. In:
Preliminary Manual, Occupational Health Psychology Unit, Utrecht University.
Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., 2004. Job demands, job resources and their

relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 25, 293–315.

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

Schmidt SW, 2007. The relationship between satisfaction with workplace training

and overall job satisfaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly 18: 481.
Schwarzer, R., Mueller, J. & Greenglass, E. (1999). Assessment of perceived general

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(74)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=74>

Shin-On Leung. 2011. A Comparison of Psychometric Properties and Normality in
4-, 5-, 6-, and 11-Point Likert Scales. Journal of Social Service Research 37(4):
412-421.

Shuck, B., & Herd, A. (2012). Employee engagement and leadership: Exploring the
convergence of two frameworks and implications for leadership development in
HRD. Human Resource Development Review, 11(2), 156–181.

Shuck, B., & Wollard, K., 2010. Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review
of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110.
Shuck, B., 2011. Four emerging perspectives of employee engagement: An

integrative literature review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), 304–
328.

Shuck, B., Twyford, D., Reio, T. G., Jr., & Shuck, A, 2014. Human resource
development practices and employee engagement: Examining the connection
with employee turnover intentions. Human Resource Development Quarterly,
25(2), 239–270.

Singh, 2016. Employee Engagement as a Contemporary Issue in HRM - A
Conceptual Framework. International Journal of Engineering and Management
Research. Volume-6, Issue-5, 364-368.

Skarlicki DP, Latham GP, 1997. Leadership training in organizational justice to

increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A replication. Personnel
Psychology 50: 617.

Society for Human Resources Management, 2015. Employee Job Satisfaction and
Engagement: Optimizing Organizational Culture for Success.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(75)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=75>

Society for Human Resources Management, 2017. Employee Job Satisfaction and
Engagement: The Doors of Opportunity Are Open.

Spector, P.E., 1997. Job Satisfaction: Application, Assessment, Causes, and
Consequences. United Kingdom: Sage Publications Ltd.

Stadler, K., & Kotze, M.E., 2006. The influence of the ropes course development
program on the self-concept and self-efficacy of young career officers. SA
Journal of industrial psychology, 32(1), 25–32.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efcacy and work-related performance: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 240–261.

Stander, M. W., Rothman, S., 2008. The Relationship Between Leadership, Job
Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment, Journal of Human Resources
Management, 7(3), 7 – 13.

Steven W. Schmidt, 2004. The Job Training and Job Satisfaction Survey - Technical
Manual.

Stoner, J. A. F. and Freeman, S., 1992. Management, Prentice Hall.

Suan CL, Nasurdin AM, 2014. An empirical investigation into the inﬂuence of human
resource management practices on work engagement: the case of
customer-contact employees in Malaysia. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and
Hospitality Research 8: 345-360.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A., 1991. Meeting
trainees’ expectations: The influence of training fulfillment on the development
of commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology,
26(6), 759–769.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(76)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=76>

Thompson, M., 2000. The Competitiveness Challenge: The Bottom Line Benefits of
Strategic Human Resources, Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC)
and UK Department of Trade and IndustryDTI.

Vera, M., Salanova, M., & Lorente, L. (2012). The predicting role of self-efficacy in
the Job Demands–Resources Model: A longitudinal study. Estudios de Psicología,
33, 167–178.

Victor, J., & Hoole, C., 2017. The inﬂuence of organizational rewards on workplace
trust and work engagement. SA Journal of Human Resource Management/SA
Tydskrif vir Menslikehulpbronbestuur, 15(0), a853.

W. Richard Carter, Paul L. Nesbit, Richard J. Badham, Sharon K. Parker & LiKuo
Sung, 2016. The effects of employee engagement and self-efficacy on job
performance: a longitudinal field study. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management.

Waal, A.D., & Jansen, P., 2013. The bonus as hygiene factor: the role of reward

systems in the high performance organization. Evidence-based HRM: A Global
Forum for Empirical Scholarship, 1(1), 41-59.

WorldatWork, 2004. ‘Paying for Performance 2003‐04.’ Survey of WorldatWork
members by WorldatWork and Hewitt Associates.

Worlu Okechukwu, 2017. Influence of Training and Development, Employee
Performance on Job Satisfaction Among the Staff of School of Technology
Management and Logistics, Universiti Utara Malaysia (Stml, Uum). Journal of
Technology Management and Business, Vol. 04, No. 01.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(77)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=77>

Xi Wen (Carys) Chan, Paula Brough, Michael O'Driscoll, Oi Ling Siu, 2017.
Self-efficacy and work engagement: Test of a chain model. International Journal of
Manpower.

Yunsoo Lee, Heh Youn Shin, Jiwon Park, Woocheol Kim, Daeyeon Cho, 2017. An
integrative literature review on employee engagement in the feld of human
resource development: exploring where we are and where we should go. Asia
Pacifc Education Review (2017) 18:541–557.

Zahid Hussain Bhat, 2013. Impact of Training on Employee Performance: A Study
of Retail Banking Sector in India. Indian Journal of Applied Research. Volume
3, Issue 6.

<b>APPENDIX </b>

<b>Questionnaire: </b>
<b>Section 1: </b>

1. Do you have experience in working for organization in Vietnam?

2. Have you received any training activity during working period before
December 2018?

<b>Section 2: </b>

3. What is your gender?

4. What was your age when you receive such training activity?
5. What is your position when you receive such training activity?
6. What is your average income?

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(78)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=78>

<i>1 – totally disagree 2 – disagree 3 – neither disagree or agree </i>
<i>4 – agree </i> <i>5 – totally agree </i>

<b>Items </b>
<b>Section 3 </b>

My department provides learning/training
opportunities to meet the changing needs of the
workplace.

1 2 3 4 5

In my department, learning is planned and
purposeful rather than accidental.

1 2 3 4 5

In my department, people are interested in both
personal and professional development

1 2 3 4 5

Training and development are encouraged and
rewarded in my department

1 2 3 4 5

Overall, the on-the-job training I receive is
applicable to my job.

1 2 3 4 5

Overall, the training I receive on the job meets my
needs.

1 2 3 4 5

Overall, I am satisfied with the amount of training I
receive on the job.

1 2 3 4 5

I am generally able to use what I learn in on-the-job
training in my job.

1 2 3 4 5

<b>Section 4 </b>

I will be able to achieve most of the goals that I set
for myself.

1 2 3 4 5

When facing difficult tasks, I am certain that I will
accomplish them.

1 2 3 4 5

In general, I think that I can obtain outcomes that
are important to me.

1 2 3 4 5

I believe I can succeed at most any endeavor to
which I set my mind.

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(79)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=79>

72
I will be able to successfully overcome many
challenges.

1 2 3 4 5

I am confident that I can perform effectively on

many different tasks.

1 2 3 4 5

Compared to other people, I can do most tasks very
well.

1 2 3 4 5

Even when things are tough, I can perform quite
well.

1 2 3 4 5

<b>Section 5 </b>

If I am supposed to put in extra effort in my job, I
need to get extra pay.

1 2 3 4 5

It is important for me to have an external incentive
to strive for in order to do a good job.

1 2 3 4 5

External incentives such as bonuses and provisions
are essential for how well I perform my job.

1 2 3 4 5

If I had been offered better pay, I would have done
a better job.

1 2 3 4 5

The tasks that I do at work are themselves
representing a driving power in my job.

1 2 3 4 5

The tasks I do at work are enjoyable. 1 2 3 4 5

My job is meaningful. 1 2 3 4 5

My job is very exciting 1 2 3 4 5

My job is so interesting that it is a motivation in
itself.

1 2 3 4 5

Sometimes I become so inspired by my job that I
almost forget everything else around me.

1 2 3 4 5

</div>
<span class='text_page_counter'>(80)</span><div class='page_container' data-page=80>

I focus hard on my work. 1 2 3 4 5

I concentrate on my work. 1 2 3 4 5

I pay a lot of attention to my work. 1 2 3 4 5

I share the same work values as my colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5

I share the same work goals as my colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5

I share the same work attitudes as my colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5

I feel positive about my work. 1 2 3 4 5

I feel energetic in my work. 1 2 3 4 5

I am enthusiastic in my work. 1 2 3 4 5

</div>

The relationship between training perception and employee engagement: Impacts of perception of reward and self-efficacy

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

<b>VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY </b>

<b>HOANG VU DUONG </b>

<b>THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN </b>

<b>TRAINING PERCEPTION AND </b>

<b>EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: IMPACTS </b>

<b>OF PERCEPTION OF REWARD AND </b>

<b>SELF-EFFICACY</b>

<b>MASTER THESIS </b>

<b>BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION </b>

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY

<b>VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY </b>

<b>HOANG VU DUONG </b>

<b>THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN </b>

<b>TRAINING PERCEPTION AND </b>

<b>EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: IMPACTS </b>

<b>OF PERCEPTION OF REWARD AND </b>

<b>SELF-EFFICACY</b>

<b> </b>

<b>MAJOR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION </b>

<b>CODE: 60340102 </b>

<b>RESEARCH SUPERVISORS </b>

<b>DR. TRAN HUY PHUONG </b>

<b>ASSOC. PROF. KODO YOKOZAWA </b>

<b>LIST OF FIGURES </b>

<b>LIST OF TABLES </b>

<b>LIST OF ABBREVIATION </b>

<b>CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION </b>

<b>CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW </b>

<b>CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY </b>

<b>CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS </b>

<b>CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION </b>

<b>REFERENCES </b>

<b>APPENDIX </b>

Tài liệu liên quan

Tài liệu bạn tìm kiếm đã sẵn sàng tải về