Journal of Management Development

Learning organizational environment and extra-role behaviors: The mediating role of employee
engagement
Talat Islam, Jawad Tariq,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Talat Islam, Jawad Tariq, "Learning organizational environment and extra-role behaviors: The mediating role of employee
engagement", Journal of Management Development, https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2017-0039
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2017-0039
Downloaded on: 07 March 2018, At: 05:09 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:320271 []
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Learning organizational environment and extra-role behaviors: The mediating role of
employee engagement

Abstract:

Purpose – Only 13% of the world's employees are engaged in their work which has become a

challenge for the managers of today. Therefore, this study aims at investigating the mediating

role of employee engagement between perceived learning environment and extra-role behaviors.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

Design/methodology/approach – This quantitative study collected data from 563 employees

using a questionnaire-based survey on a convenience basis.

Findings – The data was analyzed using structural equation modeling. The results of the study

show that employees' perception of learning environment urges them to perform beyond their

formal job descriptions (i.e., extra-role behaviors) regarding proactivity, knowledge sharing and

creativity. In addition, employee engagement performs the mediating role between learning

environment and extra-role behaviors.

Research limitations/implications – The data for this study was collected at a single point of

time (cross-sectional), which limit the inferences about the causality.

Originality/value – This study is perhaps the first attempt to empirically investigate the

mediating role of employee engagement between the relationship of the learning environment

and extra-role behaviors such as knowledge sharing, proactivity, and creativity.

Key Words: Learning Organization, Learning environment, knowledge sharing, employee

engagement, creativity, proactivity, management development.

 Introduction
Today's modern economic atmosphere, which is characterized by technology, creativity,

continuous change, and competition has weathered the conventional perspective of the employee

performance (Eldor & Harpaz, 2016; Islam et al., 2016). This shift from classical mode has

brought new challenges such as changing the employee-organizational relationship (Bakker,

Albrecht & Leiter, 2011), encouraging the researchers operating in the field of organizational
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

efficiency to move the spotlight from employee proficiency to employee level of engagement

(Griffin, Neal & Parker, 2007). According to the statistics given by Mann and Harter (2016),

only 13% of the world's employees perform their work enthusiastically (i.e., employee

engagement). Measuring employees’ level of engagement is not enough for the organizations as

there is a need to identify factors that may help managers to overcome this issue (Mann &

Harter, 2016). Therefore, the concept of employee engagement is introduced to the employee-

organizational relationship (Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2013), which is significantly associated with

employees’ emerging need of conducive opportunities for learning in the organization (Marsick,

2009; Baruch, 2006).

The recent research on employee engagement mostly includes relational studies where

employee engagement is considered as a determinant of organizational processes (e.g., see Kyndt

et al., 2009), but few studies have attempted to find the precursors to employee engagement

(Macey & Schneider, 2008). The literature on employee effectiveness suggests that it is

positively related to workplace learning environment (Rodriguez, 2008; Echols, 2007) where the

latter provides a stimulating climate for learning and development (Bernsen, Segers, & Tillema,

2009). A rationale for this relationship can be attributed to the competitiveness prevailing in the

organizations. Employees who experience the environment to be gratifying regarding learning

and growth feel themselves in an advantageous position to reciprocate to the organization

 (Rodriguez, 2008). Further, the stimulating learning environment can help employees to realize

their complete potential, resulting in self-fulfillment (a prerequisite to engagement). Borrowing

from Rodriguez (2008), the first objective of the present study is to see the relationship between

employees’ Perceived Learning Environment (PLE) and employee engagement as self-

fulfillment is a prerequisite to engagement (Schaufeli et al., 2002). The preceding arguments'

regarding employee retention with PLE and employee engagement, respectively, suggests that a
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

relationship may exist between PLE and employee engagement.

The second goal of the study is to fill in the literature gap regarding the relationship

between employee engagement and its likely effects like creativity, knowledge sharing and

proactivity (Bakker & Xanthopoulou, 2013). These three effects have been referred to as extra-

role behaviors in the literature (Rothbard & Patil, 2010). Though many studies have focused on

the relationship of employee engagement with organizational efficiency (Griffin et al., 2007) and

employees’ efficiency (Marsick, 2009), there is a lack of literature on the relationship of extra-

role behaviors and employee engagement (Eldor & Harpaz, 2016). Few studies suggest that

discovering the relationship between employee engagement and extra-role behaviors is

fundamental to raise an organizations’ comparative benefit in the market by increasing employee

retention (Herman, 2005; Schaufeli et al., 2002).

The final goal of the study is to see how the mediating role of employee engagement

affects the relationship between PLE and extra-role behaviors (creativity, knowledge sharing,

and proactivity). There is a deficiency of empirical literature determining to see the relationship

between PLE and extra-role behaviors. A few recent studies suggest a hypothetical model that

PLE can affect employees’ psyche to define their jobs extensively to cope with the challenges, an

organization face in the market (Eldor & Harpaz, 2016). These arguments suggest that PLE can
 affect employees’ proactivity, creativity, and knowledge-sharing. Nevertheless, this direct

relationship is affected by the mediating role of employee engagement as the previous debate

proposed an empirical and theoretical relationship between these constructs. Further, it can argue

that PLE can affect an employee engagement in the organization which, in turn, propel them

perform extra-role behaviors.

Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

In this section, the relationship between PLE, employee engagement, and extra-role

behaviors is reviewed for presenting conceptual framework and hypotheses formulation. The

proposed model to test the three hypotheses is presented in Figure 1.

[Insert figure 1 here]

Perceived learning environment (PLE) and employee engagement

PLE has been conceptualized by characteristics such as knowledge-transmission,

participation, shared vision, creativity and opportunities conducive to learning and inquisition

(Marsick & Watkins, 2003). Learning environment has been considered beneficial in helping an

organization to devise its (1)- competitive outlook, (2)- motivating the employees’ to strive for

completion of goals and (3)- helping the organization in its behavioral adaptation to cope with

up-and-coming challenges (Islam et al., 2015; Kennedy, Carroll, & Francoeur, 2013; Watkins &

Marsick, 1997). Few of the challenges faced by today's organizations in competitive market is

finding ways of employee retention (Islam et al., 2013, Egan et al., 2004) and performance (Joo

& Lim, 2009). Learning environment, in this regard, may help employees to enhance their skills

and capabilities to perform better and remain with their organizations (Islam et al., 2016; Egan et

al., 2004). However, its practical implications on job performance and job attitudes are lacking
 (Joo & Lim, 2009; Yang et al., 2004), but still provide evidence about learning environment and

employee engagement relationship. Therefore, the present study operates in a constructionist

perspective to see how employees’ are attaching meanings to the environment in which they are

operating and how this is affecting their engagement in the workplace.

Employee engagement is conceptualized as a multidimensional concept involving

physical (behavior), cognitive (traits), and emotional (state) components (Kahn, 1990). However,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

this study relied on Schaufeli et al.'s (2002, p. 74) conceptualization of employee engagement as

a “positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and

absorption.” Vigor involves a readiness to put an extra effort in assigned tasks, whereas

dedication refers to an emotional and cognitive domain involving good awareness of assigned

tasks considering it motivational, significant, challenging and inspirational. Absorption involves

deep concentration to a point where an employee finds it difficult to disengage from the task

(Schaufeli et al., 2002). Employee engagement in this regard, not only increases the

opportunities for learning and development, but also increases employee retention that is

favorable to the organization. Hence, there seems a probable relationship between PLE and

employee engagement as employee engagement seems like an outcome of learning environment

prevailing in the organization (Joo & Lim, 2009). PLE is considered as an important indicator of

job resources, which has been considered beneficial for motivating employees’ development and

organizational efficiency (Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010).

A plethora of literature suggests a strong relationship between employee engagement and

job resources such as task variety, significance of task, supervisor support and autonomy (Fairlie,

2011; Joo & Shim, 2010; Halbesleben, 2010; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). PLE in this sense can

result in employee engagement by providing external motivation like the fulfillment of

 organizational goals and internal motivation such as self-development and self-growth

(Halbesleben, 2010). The favorable learning environment by providing a system of feedback,

discussion, and attachment to the workplace can ensure alignment of organizational goals with

employees’ job (Burke, Holman, & Birdi, 2006). Furthermore, such an environment may help an

employee to consider their task significant, which can prove to be a stimulus for attaining

organizational goals through extra effort. As Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) argue that
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

providing a conducive climate to an employee can build their confidence in the organization

which, in turn, may result in work engagement and commitment to the organizational goals

(Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Despite the strong theoretical support for the probable relationship

between PLE and employee engagement, there is a lack of empirical research to substantiate this

relationship (for an exception see Eldor & Harpaz, 2016). In the light of above discussion this

study hypothesize that:

H1: There will be a positive relationship between PLE and employee engagement.

Employee engagement and extra-role behaviors

The shift from traditional to the modern economic model has made the market more

competitive and innovative though rapidly changing, requiring organizations to adapt for

survival (Griffin et al., 2007). Contemporary organizations in their quest for survival are trying

to engage competent employees’ ready to perform extra-role behaviors like creativity,

proactivity, and knowledge sharing that can facilitate employees’ adaptation to the contemporary

organizational criterion (Griffin et al., 2007). This study proposes that, employee engagement at

the workplace can increase these extra-role behaviors. Creativity refers to the generation of

innovative and productive ideas relevant to goods and commodities, services and organizational

practices as well as procedures (Zhou & Shalley, 2008). Proactivity involves performance that is
 both future-directed and self-initiated, seeks to alter the circumstances or oneself (Grant &

Ashford, 2008). Knowledge sharing involves an exchange of explicit and implicit information in

an attempt to develop an organizational knowledgebase (Van den Hooff & De Ridder, 2004)

thereby providing it with a competitive edge.

Studies suggest that employees’ scoring high in engagement also score high in arousal

(Langelaan et al., 2006). Engagement not only develops behaviors, but also catalyzes creativity
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

and proactivity (Shirom, 2010). Engagement can also trigger affective responses like joyfulness

and concentration, which have been related to creativity, exploration, innovative information,

novelty and responsive to opportunities at the workplace (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005;

Cropanzano & Wright, 2001). It can, therefore, be argued that employee engagement activate

positive sentiments fostering behaviors such as innovation, novelty, motivation and enthusiasm.

The proposed argument builds on Fredrickson (2003) broaden-and-build theory that positive

sentiments can increase a person's capital by altering his thinking and action. Keeping in view

the preceding debate, it is hypothesize that:

H2: There will be a positive relationship between employee engagement at the workplace and
extra-role behaviors, i.e., creativity, proactivity and knowledge sharing.

Employee engagement as a mediator

The preceding discussion presented PLE as a prerequisite to employee engagement where

the latter served as a precursor to extra-role behaviors. Similarly, this study proposes that

employees’ perception of the learning environment can increase their engagement in the

workplace by providing extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. This increased engagement can result

in various extra-role behaviors (such as creativity, proactivity and knowledge sharing) as these

positively related to organizational outcomes (Hobfoll, 2002). Employee engagement, by acting

 a mediator, facilitates the relationship between PLE and extra-role behaviors. The proposed

argument receives a theoretical substantiation from conservation-of-resource theory given by

Hobfoll (2002). The conservation-of-resource theory builds on a resource maximization model

where increase in resources leads to further resource amassing (Hobfoll, 2002). Employees to

fulfill their esteem needs and maximize welfare, try to gain, protect and increase organizational

resources.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

The resource surplus serves as a benefit to both the employer and employee in the form

of organizational efficiency and self-development respectively (Hobfoll, 2002). For the

organization, this surplus ensures a competitive edge in the market, whereas for the employee,

this resource-maximization make certain that employees’ remain engaged in their jobs to

conserve significant resources needed to achieve higher goals (Gorgievski & Hobfoll, 2008).

Based on conservation-of-resource theory, it can be argued that favorable learning environment

stressed by the provision and acquisition of resources can increase the engagement of employees

to achieve those resources, which make them perform behaviors such as creativity, proactivity,

and knowledge sharing. This study, therefore, hypothesize that:

H3: The positive relationship between PLE and extra-role behaviors (creativity, proactivity, and
knowledge sharing) will be mediated by employee engagement at the workplace.

Method

Participants of the study

According to Islam et al., (2013) employees working in the high-tech professionals are

considered as knowledge-based workers and can better demonstrate the learning environment of

their organizations. Therefore, the study collected data from four different industries of Pakistan,
 i.e., textile, cement, telecommunications, and banking. The rationale for this heterogeneous

sample is that, extra-role behaviors are required to promote in both manufacturing and service

sectors and heterogeneous respondents can better respond to such variables (Eldor & Harpaz,

2016). The data was collected between January-2016 to June-2016. The study used item-

response theory with the criteria of twenty respondents against each item of the questionnaire.

Therefore, a total of 680 questionnaires were distributed and 563 were used in the final analysis
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

(effective response rate was 82.7%).

Of these, 34 percent of the respondents were from the banking sector, 11 percent from the

cement sector, 28 percent from the telecom sector and 27 percent were from the textile sector. In

addition, respondents were also heterogeneous regarding their demographical characteristics

such as 68 percent of the respondents were male, having around six-years of work experience

with their current organization (39%), and total work experience of 13.34 years. Majority of the

respondents were holding a 16-years degree (41%) and were married (53%).

The data was collected using a questionnaire-based survey. First, permission was

obtained from the managers and then questionnaires were distributed among the respondents on

convenience basis. Respondents of such industries are well literate and they were asked in

English. Respondents argued about the secrecy of their responses and demanded that only

findings of the study should be sent to the management. The respondents were assured that their

responses would be kept confidential and only summary would be sent to the management.

Moreover, to obtain the accurate information from the respondents, managers were requested to

continue their work while sitting in their office and researchers personally collected data.

Measures
 This study used adapted questionnaire to measure job engagement, perceived learning

environment, creativity, knowledge sharing and proactivity on a five-point Likert scale ranging

from "1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree".

Perceived learning environment

The perceived learning environment was measured using seven-item shorten version of

Marsick and Watkin's (2003) "DLOQ (Dimensional of Learning Organization Questionnaire)."

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

This scale is reliable for self-reporting about learning climate of an organization (e.g., Islam et

al., 2016; Jo & Joo, 2011). Considering the arguments of Marsick and Watkin (2003) about its

uni-dimensionality, this study considered it as a single factor variable and the values of model fit

regarding confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were found to be good, i.e., x2/df=2.11, SRMR=

.026, RMSEA=.045, CFI=.98, NFI=.97. A sample item includes, "In my institution, whenever

people state their views, they also ask what others think."

Employee engagement

Employee engagement was measured using Schaufeli, Bakker and Salanova's (2006)

"UWES (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale)" nine-item scale. This scale comprised of dedication,

vigor, and absorption, which are highly correlated to each other. Therefore, the study used nine

items as a single variable (Hallberg & Schaufeli, 2006; Bakker et al., 2011) and the values of

model fit regarding CFA were found as x2/df=2.85, SRMR= .019, RMSEA=.057, CFI=.99,

NFI=.98 after deleting two items because of high residual values (Byrne, 2010). A sample item

includes, "At my work, I feel I am bursting with energy."

Knowledge sharing

Knowledge sharing was measured using three items validated scale of Van den Hooff and

Hendrix (2004). They reported the value of its internal consistency as 0.84, a sample item
 includes, "I regularly inform colleagues about what I am working on." The values of model fit of

CFA in this study were noted as x2/df=2.41, SRMR= .03, RMSEA=.053, CFI=.97, NFI=.94.

Proactivity

Employees' proactivity was measured using a three items scale of Griffin et al., (2007). A

sample item includes, "I initiate better ways of doing his/her core tasks." The values of model fit

of CFA in this study were noted as x2/df=1.93, SRMR= .008, RMSEA=.001, CFI=1.00,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

NFI=.99.

Creativity

Employees' creativity was measured using a twelve items scale of Zhou and George

(2001) as the scale was reported to have internal consistency of 0.95. A sample item includes, "I

try to deal with creative solutions for problems." The values of model fit of CFA in this study

were noted as x2/df=3.14, SRMR= .075, RMSEA=.067, CFI=.95, NFI=.94.

Control Variables

Past studies have identified a relation among age, gender, qualification, employee

engagement and extra-role behaviors (Liu, Chen & Yao, 2011; Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004).

Therefore, these variables were treated as control variables.

Results

Preliminary Analysis

First, the study conducted a preliminary analysis regarding missing values, data

normality, outliers and multicollinearity as these could affect the validity of the results using

AMOS (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007; Kline, 2005; Byrne, 2010). The data of the study were

found to be free from missing values, though it is a common issue in collecting data. One of the

reasons for this might be the personal attention of the researchers while collecting the data. The
 normality of the data was examined using the values of Skewness (±1), and Kurtosis (±3) and all

the values were found to be well within limits (Byrne, 2010). Whereas, outliers were examined

through Mahalanobis Distance, where ten responses were excluded from the study (Kline, 2005).

Multicollinearity of the data was examined following the instructions of Tabachnick and Fidell

(2007) that, correlations among variables should be less than 0.85 (see table 1).

Second, the study conducted CFA for the uni-dimensionality. The main reason to prefer
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

CFA over exploratory factor analysis was that the scales used in this study were adapted from the

previous studies and were reported as valid (Hair et al., 2010). The results of the CFA are

presented in the measurement section of the study. The data was also examined regarding the

values of average variance extracted (AVE), and it was calculated by dividing the sum of the

square of the factor loading with the number of items. The values of table 1 show the values of

AVE ranges between 0.61-0.75 which is higher than 0.50 (Hair et al., 2010).

[Insert table 1 here]

The values of the mean, standard deviation, correlation and Cronbach's alpha are presented in

table 1. The values of the mean range between 3.64-3.72 and the values of standard deviation

range between 0.61-0.74. In addition, the values of Cronbach Alpha were well above the

standard value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2006). The values of the table further represent that all the

variables positively related to each other and the values of correlation are below 0.85 ( therefore,

no multicollinearity).

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

The values of the model fitness of structured model represent a good fit, i.e., x2/df=2.48,

SRMR= .048, RMSEA=.039, CFI=.97, NFI=.96. In addition, the path coefficients of structural
 model in figure 1 represent that, PLE positively relate to employee engagement (γ=.59, P<0.01,

CR=15.21), knowledge sharing (γ=.43, P<0.01, CR=16.24), proactivity (γ=.29, P<0.01,

CR=16.07), and creativity (γ=.39, P<0.01, CR=14.58). In addition, employee engagement

positively and significantly related to knowledge sharing (γ=.56, P<0.01, CR=12.18), proactivity

(γ=.48, P<0.01, CR=11.08) and creativity (γ=.28, P<0.01, CR=10.99). These results support

suggested hypotheses H1 & H2.

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

[Insert figure 2 here]

The mediation analysis was examined using path coefficients. First, a path between

independent (i.e., PLE and mediating variable, i.e., employee engagement) is examined and

named it as "path a." Second, a path between mediating (i.e., employee engagement) and

the dependent variable (i.e., knowledge sharing, proactivity and creativity) is examined and

named it as "path b." Third, the indirect path was calculated by multiplying "path a" and

"path b." The mediation was observed by evaluating the significance of indirect path

(Edwards & Lambert, 2007). The model was examined using 5000 bootstrap samples as

suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2004). The indirect paths of learning environment on extra

role behaviors through employee engagement were found to be statistically significant such as

knowledge sharing (indirect path coefficient=.33, P<0.01), proactivity (indirect path

coefficient=.28, P<0.01) and creativity (indirect path coefficient=.17, P<0.01). These results

suggest that the association between learning environment and extra-role behaviors can be

explained through employee engagement (Chand, 2010), which support suggested hypothesis

H3.

Discussion and Implications

 This study aims at investigating the mediating role of employee engagement between

perceived learning environment and extra-role behaviors (i.e., knowledge sharing, proactivity,

and creativity). The results identify that learning environment enhances employee engagement

with their work, which ultimately promotes sharing of knowledge, creativity and proactivity of

the employees. Learning environment endorses a sense of meaningfulness and challenges, which

encourage them to invest their cognitive, physical and emotional resources in performing
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

extraordinarily well. Broaden-and-build theory of Fredrickson (2003) and conservation-of-

resource theory of Hobfoll (2002) also suggest an association among engagement, extra-role

performance and organizational resources.

The literature on employee engagement and job attitudes is clear, but its association with

work performance is inconclusive (Newman et al., 2010). The study found that employee

engagement is beneficiary for the organizations and this contributes to the organization-

employee relationship. Earlier scholars were of the view that organization-employee relationship

is more beneficiary for the organizations (Shore, Porter & Zahra, 2004; Coyle-Shapiro & Shore,

2007). However, emerging field of organizational behavior suggested that organization-

employee relationship has equally advantageous to the employees (Luthans & Youssef, 2007) as

they are the key assets for the organization. In addition, in today's era of modern technology,

less attention is given to understand the level of activities required by the employees (i.e.,

engagement) (Masson et al., 2008). As per the global statistics, only 13 percent of the employees

are engaged in their work enthusiastically (Mann & Harter, 2016). Our findings on this emerging

issue corroborate its benefits for the employees and it is not only a repacking of employee-

organization relationship (Vigoda-Gadot et al., 2013).

 Most of the past studies have focused on the association between job resource and

employee engagement. However, this study extended the existing literature by focusing on

learning environment of an organization. According to Rahim (2015), most of the international

organizations focus on employer-employee relationships without focusing on "reciprocation"

without which organization cannot win their employees' engagement. The study found that

employees with the perception of learning opportunities are more likely to engage and in turn
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

tends to share their knowledge with colleagues to be more creative in the workplace. According

to Eldor and Harpaz (2016), learning environment encourages employees to be creative by

fostering their confidence. Therefore, encouraging learning feedback and promoting team

learning connect employees towards organizational goals by enhancing their enthusiasm and

desire to accomplish challenging goals. Particular to the Pakistani context, empirical statistics

regarding employee engagement were found to be different as 85% of the banking employees

were found to engage in their jobs, whereas, only 4% were found to be actively disengaged

(Sidiqui & Maqsood, 2008). One of the major reasons of such difference of the employee

engagement is communication between employee and employer, which makes this association

strengthen and employees show commitment towards their organization (Islam et al., 2015).

According to the arguments of Siddique and Maqsood (2008), in Pakistan employees are well

informed about their roles and strategies that enable them to perform their duties without

hesitation. In addition, employees in Pakistan are well aware of the term "industrial relations"

that strengthen their employer-employee relationship (Rahim, 2015). In general, learning

climate positively influence employee engagement. In addition, the combination of the learning

environment and employee engagement help employees to manage their career as they focus

more on personal growth and knowledge opportunities (Lee & Bruvold, 2003). Thus, this study
 empirically investigates the idea of Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) that, "allowing employees to

grow via career development is a key factor in encouraging employee engagement."

Although the hypotheses of this study were theoretically driven, nevertheless, it has

practical implications. The study suggests to the human resource developers and management to

foster a learning environment. Managers, in order to create organizational vision by encouraging

employees to learn on a continuous basis, should promote a learning environment that includes
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

motivation, empowerment, and sharing of ideas and thoughts with coworkers. In addition, the

study suggests managers foster a learning environment to engage their employees, as measuring

employee engagement is not sufficient to sustain. Organization on the other side, may get the

benefit of engaged employees as this encourages employees to be creative, proactive and using

the acquired knowledge to accomplish organizational goals.

It is essential for the today's leaner organizations to have more responsible and engaged

employees to accomplish their desired goals. Additionally, globalization and decentralization

make it difficult for the managers monitor their subordinate's performance, especially in harder

areas such as creativity and proactivity (Eldor & Harpaz, 2016; Buchner, 2007). Therefore,

managers by encouraging employee engagement may focus more on performance facilitation

comparing performance management. As only change is permanent, therefore, the manager

should develop strategies to facilitate employees to deal with the ever-changing environment.

Engaged employees are proactive, therefore, when they find themselves lacking in environment

fit, and try to redesign themselves to cope with the changing environments. Therefore, managers

should foster learning climate to have more engaged employees.

The study also suggests organizations to let their employees know about "employee

relations" rather "industrial relations." Employees across the globe are more familiar with the
 "industrial relations" rather "employee relations" which is labor-oriented rather industry-

oriented. Organizations must define the term employee relations from their perspective as NASA

has defined it as, “Employee relations involve the body of work concerned with maintaining

employer-employee relationships that contribute to satisfactory productivity, motivation, and

morale. Essentially, employee relations are concerned with preventing and resolving problems

involving individuals which arise out of or affect work situations”. Similarly, Oxford University
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

defines the term as, “Employee relations is a common title for the industrial relations function

within personnel management... The term ... is not confined to the study of trade unions but

embraces the broad pattern of employee management, including systems of direct

communication and employee involvement that target the individual worker.” Thus, by defining

their perspective of employee relations and letting their employees know about it, organizations

may get the benefit of employee engagement.

Limitations and future direction

Despite contributing to the existing literature on employee engagement and learning

environment, our study is not free from limitations. First, the data for this study was collected at

a single point of time (cross-sectional), which limitized the inferences about the causality.

Therefore, future researchers are suggested to conduct a longitudinal study. Second, the results of

this study are limited to Pakistan that represents Asian culture; future studies should replicate the

model in western culture for its generalizability as a culture may affect the results (Islam, Ahmed

& Ahmad, 2015) and employee engagement is a global issue. Third, the data of this study was

self-reported, which may raise a question on common source biases. Therefore, future

researchers should consider supervisors to collect data about employee's extra-role behaviors.
 Finally, future researchers may extend the model by taking dimensions of learning climate and

incorporating variables like organizational politics and ethical climate.

References:

Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2013), "Creativity and charisma among female leaders: The
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

role of resources and work engagement", International Journal of Human Resource

Management, Vol. 24 No. 14, pp. 2760–2779.
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S. L., & Leiter, M. P. (2011), "Key questions regarding work
engagement", European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No.1,
pp. 4–28.
Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E. (2007), “The job demands-resources model: state of the art”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 309-328.
Baruch, Y. (2006), "Career development in organizations and beyond: Balancing traditional and
contemporary viewpoints", Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp.
125–138.
Bernsen, P., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. (2009), "Learning under pressure: Learning strategies,
workplace climate, and leadership style in the hospitality industry", International
Journal of Human Resource Development and Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 358–373.
Buchner, T. W. (2007), "Performance management theory: A look from the performer’s
perspective with implications for HRD", Human Resource Development International,
Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 59–73.
Burke, M. J., Holman, D., & Birdi, K. (2006), "A walk on the safe side: The implications of
learning theory for developing effective safety and health training", In Hodgkinson, G.
P. & Ford, J. K. (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational
psychology (pp. 1–44). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications,
and Programming, 2nd ed., Routledge, New York, NY.
Chand, M. (2010), “The impact of HRM practices on service quality, customer satisfaction and
performance in the Indian hotel industry”, International Journal of Human Resource
Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 551-566.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. A.-M., & Shore, L. M. (2007), "The employee–organization relationship:
Where do we go from here?", Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp.
166–179.
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005), "Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary
review", Journal of Management, Vol. 31, pp. 874–900.
 Cropanzano, R., & Wright, T. A. (2001), "When a “happy” worker is really a “productive”
worker: A review and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis",
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 182–199.
Demerouti, E. and Cropanzano, R. (2010), “From thought to action: employee work engagement
and job performance”, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds),Work Engagement: A
Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, New York, NY, pp.
147-163.
Echols, M. E. (2007), "Learning’s role in talent management", Chief Learning Officer, Vol. 6
No. 10, pp. 36–40.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. (2007), "Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

general analytical framework using moderated path analysis", Psychological Methods,

Vol.12 No. 1, pp. 1–22.
Egan, T.M., Yang, B. and Bartlett, K. (2004), “The effects of organizational learning culture and
job satisfaction on motivation to transfer learning and turnover intention”, Human
Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 279-301.
Eldor, L., & Harpaz, I. (2016), "A process model of employee engagement: The learning climate
and its relationship with extra-role performance behaviors", Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 213–235.
Fairlie, P. (2011), "Meaningful work, employee engagement, and other key employee outcomes:
Implications for human resource development", Advances in Developing Human
Resources, Vol. 13 No.4 , pp. 508–525.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003), "Positive emotions and upward spirals in organizations", In Cameron,
K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:
Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 163–175). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005), "Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human
flourishing", American Psychologist, Vol. 60 No. 7, pp. 678–686.
Gorgievski, M. J., & Hobfoll, S. E. (2008), "Work can burn us out or fire us up: Conservation of
resources in burnout and engagement", In Halbesleben, J. R. B. (Ed.), Handbook of
stress and burnout in health care (pp. 7–22). Hauppauge, NY: Nova.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008), "The dynamics of proactivity at work", Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 3-34.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007), "A new model of work role performance:
Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts", Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 327–347.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: A
Global Perspective, 7th ed., Pearson, Boston, MA.
Halbesleben, J.R.B. (2010), “A meta-analysis of work engagement: relationships with burnout,
demands, resources and consequences”, in Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), Work
Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research, Psychology Press, New
York, NY, pp. 102-117.
 Hallberg, U. E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006), “Same, same” but different? Can work engagement
be empirically separated from job involvement, and organizational, commitment?",
European Psychologist, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 119–127.
Herman, R. E. (2005), "HR managers as employee-retention specialists", Employment Relations
Today, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 1–7.
Hiltrop, J. M. (1999), "The quest for the best: human resource practices to attract and retain
talent", European Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 422–430.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002), "Social and psychological resources and adaptation", Review of General
Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 307–324.
Islam, T., Ahmed, I., & Ahmad, U.N.U. (2015), "The influence of organizational learning culture
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

and perceived organizational support on employees’ affective commitment and turnover

intention", Nankai Business Review International, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 417-431.
Islam, T., Khan, M. M., & Bukhari, F. H. (2016), "The role of organizational learning culture
and psychological empowerment in reducing turnover intention and enhancing
citizenship behavior", The Learning Organization, Vol. 23 No. 2/3, pp. 156-169.
Islam, T., Khan, S.R., Ahmad, U.N.U., & Ahmed, I. (2013), "Organizational Learning culture
and Leader- member exchange: The way to enhance organizational commitment and
reduce turnover intentions", The Learning Organization, Vol. 20 No. 4/5, pp. 322-337.
Jo, S.J. & Joo, B. (2011), “Knowledge sharing: the influences of learning organization culture,
organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Culture, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 353-364.
Joo, B.-K., & Shim, J. H. (2010), "Psychological empowerment and organizational commitment:
The moderating effect of organizational learning culture", Human Resource
Development International, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 425–441.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 692-724.
Kennedy, F., Carroll, B., & Francoeur, J. (2013), "Mindset not skill set: Evaluating in new
paradigms of leadership development", Advances in Developing Human Resources, Vol.
15 No. 1, pp. 10 -26.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., The
Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Langelaan, S., Bakker, A.B., van Doornen, L. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “Burnout and work
engagement: do individual differences make a difference?” Personality and Individual
Differences, Vol. 40, pp. 521-532.
Lee, C. H., & Bruvold, N. T. (2003), "Creating value for employees: Investing in employee
Development", International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 14 No. 6,
pp. 981–1000.
Liu, D., Chen, X.-P., & Yao, X. (2011), "From autonomy to creativity: A multilevel
investigation of the mediating role of harmonious passion", Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 2, pp. 294–309.
 Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007), "Emerging positive organizational behavior", Journal of
Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 321–349.
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, Vol. 1, pp. 3-30.
Mann, A., & Harter, J. (2016), "The worldwide employee engagement crises", Available at:
http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/188033/worldwide-employee-engagement-
crisis.aspx
Marsick, V. J. (2009), "Toward a unifying framework to support informal learning theory,
research and practice", Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 265–275.
Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003), "Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learning
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

culture: The dimensions of learning organizations questionnaire", Advances in

Developing Human Resources, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 132–151.
Masson, R. C., Royal, M. A., Agnew, T. G., & Fine, S. (2008), "Leveraging employee
engagement: The practical implications", Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice, Vol. 1, pp. 56–59.
Newman, D. A., Joseph, D. L., & Hulin, C. L. (2010), "Job attitudes and employee engagement:
Considering the attitude“A-factor.” In Albrecht, S. (Ed.), The handbook of employee
engagement: Perspectives, issues, research, and practice (pp. 43–61). Cheltenham, UK:
Edward Elgar.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004), "SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects
in simple mediation models", Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 717–731.
Rahim, P. (2015), Employee Relations, Retrieved on 21 June 2017 from:
https://www.dawn.com/news/1198893
Rodriguez, R. (2008), "Learning’s impact on talent flow", Chief Learning Officer, Vol. 7 No.4,
pp. 50–64.
Rothbard, N. P., & Patil, S. V. (2010), "Being there: Work engagement and positive
organizational scholarship. In Handbook of positive organizational scholarship"
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA: Oxford University
Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2007), "Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question: Burnout
and work engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs", Anxiety, Stress and
Coping, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 177–196.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2006), "The measurement of work engagement
with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study", Educational and Psychological
Measurement, Vol. 66 No. 4, pp. 701–716.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002),“The measurement
of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”,
Journal of Happiness Studies, Vol. 3, pp. 71-92.
 Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004), "The effects of personal and contextual
characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here?", Journal of Management,
Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 933–958.
Shore, L. M., Porter, L. W., & Zahra, S. A. (2004), "Employer-oriented strategic approaches to
the employee–organization relationship (EOR)", In Coyle-Shapiro, J., Shore, L. M.
Taylor, S. & Tetrick, L. E. (Eds.), The employment relationship: Examining
psychological and contextual perspectives (pp. 133–160). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Sidiqui, S.N., & Maqsood, A. (2008), "An Exploratory Study on Employee Engagement in the
Banking Sector of Pakistan: A Case Study of Bank AlFalah", Journal of Independent
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

Studies and Research (JISR)- Management and Social Sciences & Economics, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 2-5.
Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed., Pearson, Boston,
MA.
Van den Hooff, B., & De Ridder, J. A. (2004), "Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of
organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge
sharing", Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 117–130.
Vigoda-Gadot, E., Eldor, L., & Schohat, L. M. (2013), "Engage them to public service:
Conceptualization and empirical examination of employee engagement in public
administration", American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 518–538.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2001), "When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: Encouraging the
expression of voice", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 682–696.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. (2008), "Expanding the scope and impact of organizational creativity
research", In J. Zhou, & C. E. Shally (Eds.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp.
347–368). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
 Table 1: Mean, Standard Deviation, Cronbach Alpha and Correlation
Variables Mean S.D AVE ∞ 1 2 3 4 5
1-Learning Environment 3.71 0.63 0.68 0.82 1
2-Employee Engagement 3.68 0.74 0.75 0.89 0.67** 1
3-Knowledge Sharing 3.64 0.74 0.71 0.79 0.48** 0.56** 1
4-Proactivity 3.69 0.70 0.61 0.74 0.26** 0.30** 0.39** 1
5-Creativity 3.72 0.61 0.66 0.88 0.56** 0.52** 0.64** 0.47** 1
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

Note: AVE = Average Variance Extrancted, SD = Standard Deviation, ** P<0.01

 Extra-role behavior

Knowledge
Sharing

Learning Employee
Proactivity
Environment Engagement
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF NEW ENGLAND (AUS) At 05:09 07 March 2018 (PT)

Creativity

Figure 1: Hypothesized Model

Employee .56** Knowledge

Engagement Sharing

.59**
.43** .48**

Learning Proactivity
Environment
.29**

.28**
.39**
Creativity

Figure 2: Standardized Estimates of hypothesized Model