DETERMINANT OF EMPOYEE ENGAGEMENT AND KNOWLEDGE

MANAGEMENT FOR ENHANCING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Norasiken Abdul Rahman
Faculty of Management
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
norasiken9291@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This article argues that from an organization diffusion perspective, drivers of employee engagement
and knowledge management has the potential to increased employee engagement. Organization
today use engaged employee as a tool for a strategic partner in the business. The aim of this paper is
to review research on to find a relationship between determinant of employee engagement and
knowledge management to employee engagement. The study explores the concept of employee
engagement and also throws light on key drivers of employee engagement by analyzing three divers,
namely goals setting, leadership and feedback specifically. This study also explores how knowledge
management can enhance employee engagement. Other than that, this studies identifies gaps in the
current body of knowledge, which justify future research direction. Based on the findings, all the
drivers and knowledge management can enhance to employee engagement. Implications of the
results and future research directions are also presented.
Keywords : Goal setting, Leadership, Feedback, Knowledge Management, Employee
engagement, Systematic review

1. Introduction
Randstad World of Work Report stated in The Malaysian Insider, 70% of employers acknowledged
that staff turnover from businesses operating in Malaysia. Why does it happen? In recent times, due
to rapid globalization, companies have realized that employee talent is the key to their growth, and
the one strategic resource that any enterprise truly needs. However, one of the toughest challenges
confronting the CEOs, Human Resource Development (HRD) and the business leaders in many
business firm and organizations that their need to ensure that when their employees check in every
day, they not only do it physically but also mentally and emotionally (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). In
other word, the employer needs to ensure that their employees engaged. Employee engagement
has emerged as a critical driver of the organization, and it practically affects the employee morale,
productivity, reason for retaining and also individual satisfaction (Sanborn & Oehler, 2014).
The topic of employee engagement and knowledge management in the workplace were writing in
tremendous amount (Medlin and Jr, 2009). The past decade has seen the number of empirical
studies about employee engagement and knowledge management have found in internet source
and online database in various business and organization type (e.g Sanborn & Oehler, 2014; Truss,
Shantz, Soane, Alfes and Delbridge, 2013; Jeung, 2011; Simpson, 2009). It is essential to provide
more empirical study about the relationship between knowledge management and employee
engagement and the impact to organization performance. However, past researcher not given
attention to how knowledge management can enhance employee engagement and in future impact
to organization performance.

E-Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR 2015

(e-ISBN 978-967-0792-04-0). 8 & 9 June 2015, Meli Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Organized by http://WorldConferences.net

556

Saks (2011) and Andrew & Sofian (2012) mentions that employee engagement is a key driver of
individual attitudes, behavior, and performance as well as organizational performance, productivity,
retention nancial performance, and even shareholder return. Tubigi and Alshawi (2015) highlights
that knowledge is generated by individuals. The development of knowledge, ideas, and innovation
takes place mainly through the interaction of individual. The combination of drivers of employee
engagement and knowledge management process can improve an employee engagement and also
organization performance (Simon, 2011).
2. Rationale
Firstly, this study attempts to look which covered the relationship between drivers of employee
engagement and knowledge management to employee engagement and organization performance.
Employers know that employees who are engaged in their work more productive, and, every
organization needs to know what is the top determinant of employee engagement. Also, how to
organize knowledge so that the employee can maximize their effort to achieve their work objective
and at the same time fulfill the organization performance. There are many drivers to employee
engagement. This paper discusses three drivers in employee engagement goals setting, leadership,
and feedback.
From knowledge management perspective, it can affect an organization performance and employee
satisfaction on their job. Knowledge management can maintain its long-term competitive
advantages (Deng, 2015; Gonzalez & Martins, 2014) sustain high performance (Bedarkar & Pandita,
2014b; Sanders & McClellan, 2012) and become more innovative (Gonzalez & Martins, 2014; Xu &
Thomas, 2011), especially in the current business environment, which is conceived of as a
knowledge-driven economy.
I have conceptualized a model analyzing specifically these drivers of engagement and knowledge
management, which lead to the employee and organizational performance. Secondly, the existing
literature shows that there is a dearth of academic studies discuss determinant of employee
engagement and knowledge management together. The novelty of this research lies in integrating
knowledge management and employee engagement; both tracks give impact to management and
organizational performance.
3. Employee engagement Meaning, Definitions, Scope, and Nature
Employee engagement has received a great deal of attention especially in the popular press and
among consulting rms (Gruman & Saks, 2011). Most of researchers argue that there is no single and
generally accepted definition of the term employee engagement (Menguc, Auh, Fisher, & Haddad,
2013; Shuck, Rocco, & Albornoz, 2011; Richardson, 2010). The denition and meaning of employee
engagement has been problematic and lacking consensus, especially in the practitioner literature
where it has often been dened in ways that overlap with better-known constructs such as job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior (Saks, 2011).
The verdict and definition forwarded by Robinson, Perryman and Hayday (2004) gives a clear insight
from Institute For Employment Studies (IES) definition that employee engagement is the:
A positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization and its
values. An engaged employee is aware of business context and works with
colleagues to improve performance within the job for the benefit of the
organization (Robinson et al., 2004,p.xi)
E-Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR 2015
(e-ISBN 978-967-0792-04-0). 8 & 9 June 2015, Meli Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Organized by http://WorldConferences.net

557

Many research have argue that Employee engagement is defined in general as the level of
commitment and involvement an employee behavioral facets in that it involves energy, enthusiasm
and focused effort ( J., 2014; Gruman & Saks, 2011) and express themselves physically, cognitively,
and emotionally during role performance (Saks, 2011). From another perspective, Luong (2012)
mention terms employee engagement as organizational commitment, particularly affective
commitment, continuance commitment, and extra-role behavior. The definition is similar with
Markos and Sridevi (2010) when they argue that employee engagement is used to describe the
extent to which employees are involved with, committed to, enthusiastic, and passionate about
their work. From all definition above, employee engagement can conclude that employees are
engaged when they investing their hands, head, and heart and are psychologically present when
occupying and performing an organizational role (Shantz, Alfes, Truss, & Soane, 2012).
An empirical study of employee engagement was first demonstrated by Kahn (1990) when he
suggested that three psychological conditions serve an antecedent of personal engagement are
meaningfulness (work elements), safety (social elements, including management style, process, and
organizational norms) and availability (individual distractions). Since that, many studies about
engagement among workers have been carried out by researcher whether from social science fields
or business.
Many writers have argued that employee engagement can lead to enhanced performance and key
driver of individual attitudes, behavior, and performance as well as organizational performance,
productivity, retention nancial performance, and even shareholder return (Saks, 2011). These
findings are supported by a growing number of studies arriving at a positive relationship between
engagement and individual performance (J., 2014; K. Truss et al., 2011; Markos & Sridevi, 2010;
Medlin & Jr, 2009). Studies of employee engagement have consistently found that almost all workers
are engaged when they begin a job, but the proportion of engaged employees decreases
dramatically after that (Marrelli, 2011). He also suggests that managers play a key role in building
employee engagement and thereby driving high employee performance.
4. Drivers of Employee Engagement
Taking the perspectives from the above literature and other relevant items, this study consolidated
some factors that contributed employee engagement. Various factors that facilitate of employee
engagement were identified and were empirically tested and found to be valid determinants of
employee engagement. In this study, the factors enhancing employee engagement was based on an
engagement management model, which is developed by Gruman and Saks (2011). This model was
developed to focus on employee engagement to produce higher levels of performance.

E-Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR 2015

(e-ISBN 978-967-0792-04-0). 8 & 9 June 2015, Meli Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Organized by http://WorldConferences.net

558

Figure 1: The engagement management model

Source: Performance management and employee engagement (2011).

Note: Arrow around the circumference of the model represents the engagement management
process. Dotted lines represent the drivers of employee engagement.

The model begins with performance agreement, which outlines the goals and objectives that
employees will be expected to accomplish. Also to goal setting, this component includes a review
and an agreement of a psychological contract. The second component is engagement facilitation,
which focuses on providing resources that facilitate the development of engagement. These
resources include job design, leadership, coaching, supervisor support, and training. The third
component is performance and engagement appraisal and feedback, which focuses on perceptions
of justice and trust as drivers of engagement. In summary, these three components contribute to
higher levels of engagement, which is then associated with enhanced performance.
5. Knowledge management process
Knowledge is a crucial organizational asset that comes from individuals mind, belief or values, and it
creates value for improving competitive advantages (Ducker, 1990). It is a judgment based on
individual beliefs. Hence, it varies from one person to another and could not be easily transferred
(Nonaka, 1994). According to Sokhanvar, Matthews and Yarlagadda (2014) knowledge management
is systemic and organizationally specified process for acquiring, organizing and communicating both
tacit and explicit knowledge of employees so that other employees may make use of it to be more
effective and productive in their work. It is managements conscientious efforts to use tools and
approaches to create, acquire, refine, transfer or share and utilize knowledge assets available to the
company (Mazdeh & Hesamamiri, 2014).
Mulyaningsih, Yudoko, and Rudito (2014) highlights the need to leveraging of existing human
capital/intellectual assets to help generate, capture, organize and share knowledge that is relevant
to the mission of the organization. It provides the capability the business structure (e.g. formal,
informal), functions, and processes in order for the industry to survive and prosper in this dynamic
environment (G. Allen, 2013; Wu & Chen, 2014). Knowledge management offers ways to improve
practices and procedures, develop and enhance employee engagement and performance, decrease
the learning curve associated with new employees or new tasks, improve customer service, and
reduce cost (Garstenauer, Blackburn, & Olson, 2015). Martn-Prez, Martn-Cruz, & Estrada-Vaquero
(2012) claims that knowledge management is the effective application of management best
practices and information technology tools to deliver the best available knowledge to the right
person at just the right time to solve a problem, make a decision, or capture expertise while
E-Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR 2015
(e-ISBN 978-967-0792-04-0). 8 & 9 June 2015, Meli Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Organized by http://WorldConferences.net

559

performing their work. Moreover, the implementation of a knowledge management process can
increase effectiveness, efficiency, and innovation employee (T. H. Kim, Lee, Chun, & Benbasat, 2014).
Figure 2: Knowledge management process model

Source: Adapted from Botha, Kourie, and Snyman (2008)

Figure 2 show knowledge management process model. This model attempts to offer a more realistic
overview of the knowledge management process. The three broad categories overlap and interact
with one another. The focus is on managerial initiatives. Here too the strategic focus (the "when"
and the "why" as opposed to the "what") is omitted. It is noteworthy that this model does include
the creation of new knowledge as a specific KM initiative.
6. Methodology
To continue with my work on how knowledge management can enhance employee engagement,
this paper is based on a systematic review of the literature on employee engagement that seeks to
synthesize the current thinking and evidence. Emphasis is drawn on specifically on three drivers of
engagement at 2014 Trends in global engagement report. As shown in Figure 2, three drivers of
employee engagement were (1) performance agreement (2) engagement facilitation (3)
performance and engagement appraisal and feedback and knowledge management process (1)
knowledge creating (2) knowledge capturing (3) knowledge transfer / sharing (4) knowledge reusing
which have an impact on employee engagement. Literature for this study was predominantly
sourced from online databases such as EBSCOHost, Emerald, ProQuest, and ScienceDirect.
7. A research model
As discusses earlier in this paper, I have focused on the three specific drivers of engagement and
knowledge management process (refer Exhibit 1). I assumed that drivers to employee engagement
and knowledge management process impact on employee engagement that ultimately results in
higher organization performance.

E-Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR 2015

(e-ISBN 978-967-0792-04-0). 8 & 9 June 2015, Meli Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Organized by http://WorldConferences.net

560

Exhibit 1: Proposed research model

Drivers of Employee Engagement

Performance agreement
Engagement facilitation
Performance and
engagement appraisal and
feedback
Employee
engagement

Organizational
performance

Knowledge management process

Knowledge creation and

sensing
Knowledge organizing and
capture
Knowledge sharing and
dissemination

The association between drivers of employee engagement and knowledge management to

employee engagement is as follows:
7.1 Goals setting and employee engagement
Numerous studies (e.g J., 2014; Mone, Eisinger, Guggenheim, Price, & Stine, 2011; Simon, 2011;
Medlin & Jr, 2009)have discussed effective goal settings positive impact on employee outcomes
within organizations (Medlin & Jr, 2009). Goals are extremely important for initiating the employee
engagement process because goals stimulate energy, focus, and intensity or the feeling of
engagement (Gruman & Saks, 2011).
In the performance management literature, performance agreement involves the negotiation of
goals that employees will accomplish (Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Gruman and Saks (2011) notes that
although an employee's work goals should support higher-level organizational objectives, an
individual's developmental needs can also be considered when establishing goals. To produce
engagement, not only should employees' needs be considered, their needs, goals, and desires
should be a significant part of the goal setting process. Medlin and Jr (2009) suggests that goals
should take into account the achievement of corporate objectives, but should also allow individuals
to formulate their goals within the broader organizational context. Allowing employees to have a say
in setting goals may be more likely to produce engagement than requiring them to satisfy imposed
goals because the former will take into account employees' values and interests which represent
their true selves (Gruman & Saks, 2011).

E-Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR 2015

(e-ISBN 978-967-0792-04-0). 8 & 9 June 2015, Meli Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Organized by http://WorldConferences.net

561

7.2 Leadership and employee engagement

Leaders are a vital ingredient in the success of performance management. For example, the quality
of the exchange relationship between leaders and subordinates has been shown to be positively
related to subordinates' satisfaction with their performance appraisals and motivation to
improve(Markos & Sridevi, 2010). Leaders also play a crucial role in fostering the engagement of
subordinates. Leaders who are high in task behavior and support behavior have been shown to be
particularly effective in promoting engagement (Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010).
Xu and Thomas (2011) state that leadership is a key antecedent of engagement. From their study of
the relationship between position and engaged, their found that certain job characteristics are
associated with employee engagement. Specifically, those in more senior positions in organizations
have greater autonomy over how they do their work, and are more likely to be in interesting roles
that allow for cognitive, emotional, and physical engagement in work.
Leadership research shows that certain leadership behaviors have a clear association with
engagement constructs such as motivation, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, proactive
behaviors and organizational citizenship behavior (Nguyen & Mohamed, 2004). Trust in leader,
support from the leader, and creating a blame-free environment are considered as components of
psychological safety, a condition proposed by Kahn, which leads to employee engagement (Bedarkar
& Pandita, 2014a).
7.3 Feedback and employee engagement
A key component of performance management and, in fact, a cornerstone of the process is the
appraisal and evaluation of employee performance (Gruman & Saks, 2011; Mone et al., 2011). In the
context of employee engagement, this process should also include an assessment of an employee's
engagement behavior (e.g., persistence, proactivity, role expansion, and adaptability) also to job
performance.Also, the main activities during this stage are performance appraisals and feedback.
Recognition can be viewed as a form of feedback rooted in positive reinforcement and tied to an
employees behavior or accomplishment of a specific goal or task. Research from Mone et al. (2011)
suggests that recognition and reward are critical to employee engagement, and they enhance
satisfaction, motivation, and morale. In addition, as reported in Shantz et al. (2012) beyond sending
a positive message to employees in terms of value, research shows that recognition links to
employee performance and company success; however, if employees are not recognized for their
efforts, they could experience mental and emotional distress and burnout (Xu & Thomas, 2011).
7.4 Knowledge management and employee engagement
Based on the knowledge-based review, the emergence of knowledge management primarily
concerns the creation, access, transfer and application of knowledge assets in all fields of human
activities such that critical intellectual capitals are strategically combined and applied to built
employee engagement and to improve organizational performance (Chen, Wu, & Chen, 2014).
Vosloban (2012) examined the importance of knowledge management processes to logistics
operations. The results indicated that a higher level of knowledge responsiveness results in faster
response implementation, which increases the likelihood of meeting deadlines for pre-defined goals
as well as impact employee engagement.

E-Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR 2015

(e-ISBN 978-967-0792-04-0). 8 & 9 June 2015, Meli Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Organized by http://WorldConferences.net

562

Implementing knowledge management process in any organizations is essential as it enhances

learning capabilities of individual employees as well as a group of employees (Birasnav, 2014).
According to Bedarkar and Pandita (2014) earning emerges at individual employee level, group level,
and institutional level, which are integrated into knowledge process such as intuiting, interpreting,
integrating, and institutionalizing. Implementing KM process is an essential activity that
organizations must execute to achieve competitive advantage through encouraging employees to
contribute toward developing organizational knowledge (Vosloban, 2012).
7.5 Employee engagement and organization performance
Why should companies invest in employee engagement? The answer is because employee
engagement is interwoven significantly with important business outcomes. Studies by Markos &
Sridevi (2010) have found a positive relationship between employee engagement and organizational
performance outcomes: employee retention, productivity, profitability, customer loyalty, and safety.
Researchers also indicate that the most engaged employees are, the more likely their employer is to
exceed the industry average in its revenue growth.
Employee engagement is found to be higher in double-digit growth companies. Research also
indicates that engagement is positively related to customer satisfaction (e.g., Bedarkar & Pandita,
2014; Dalal, Baysinger, Brummel, & Lebreton, 2012; T. T. Kim & Lee, 2013; Marrelli, 2011; West &
Dawson, 2012; Xu & Thomas, 2011). Sanborn and Oehler (2014) write in Aon Hewiit report 2014
when employee engaged their consistently demonstrates three general behaviors which improve
organizational performance:
(1) Say-the employee advocates for the organization to co-workers and refers potential employees
and customers
(2) Stay-the employee has an intense desire to be a member of the organization despite
opportunities to work elsewhere, an
(3) Strive-the employee exerts extra time, effort and initiative to contribute to the success of the
business.
What will happen to an organization if its employees are disengaged? Employees who are not
engaged are likely to be spinning (wasting their effort and talent on tasks that may not matter
much), settling (certainly do not show full commitment, not dissatisfied enough to make a break)
and splitting (they are not sticking around for things to change in their organization), have far more
misgivings about their organization in terms of performance measures such as customer satisfaction
(T. T. Kim & Lee, 2013; Marrelli, 2011).
8. Conclusion and Future Recommendation
Companies have to give their employees the liberty to make their work exciting and creating an
environment for having an engaged work life. Employees are the key assets of any organization and
if they are not given the right space and time to make a perfect blend of work and fun at workplace,
then the sense of disengagement sets for the employees. Organization and employees are both
dependent on each other to fulfill their goals and objectives. Therefore, employee engagement
should not be a one-time exercise but it should be integrated into the culture of the company.
Employee engagement should be a continuous process of learning, improvement and action. Thus,
organizations today should actively look forward to fulfilling employee`s expectations and thus,
create an impact on the performance of the employee, which directly affects the organizations
performance.
E-Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR 2015
(e-ISBN 978-967-0792-04-0). 8 & 9 June 2015, Meli Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Organized by http://WorldConferences.net

563

References
Allen, G. (2013). The influence of organizational culture on affinity for knowledge management
practices of registered nurse. Walden University.
Allen, W. R. (2013). The correlation between corporate volunteerism and employee engagement
levels of employed service club participants located in northern missouri. Capella University.
Andrew, O. C., & Sofian, S. (2012). Individual factors and work outcomes of employee engagement.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 498508.
Bedarkar, M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting
employee performance. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 106115.
Birasnav, M. (2014). Knowledge management and organizational performance in the service
industry: The role of transformational leadership beyond the effects of transactional
leadership. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 16221629.
Botha, A., Kourie, D., & Snyman, R. (2008). Coping with continuous change in the business
environment, knowledge management and knowledge management technology (1st ed.).
Chandos Publishing (Oxford) Limited.
Chen, I. W. J., Wu, I., & Chen, J. (2014). Knowledge management driven firm performance: the roles
of business process capabilities and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 18(6), 11411164.
Dalal, R. S., Baysinger, M., Brummel, B. J., & Lebreton, J. M. (2012). The relative importance of
employee engagement, other job attitudes, and trait affect as predictors of job performance.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42.
Demerouti, E., & Cropanzano, R. (2010). From thought to action: employee work engagement and
job performance. In Work Engagement: A Handbook of Essential Theory and Research (pp.
147163).
Deng, S. L. Z. (2015). Understanding knowledge management capability in business process
outsourcing. Management Decision, 53(1), 124138.
Ducker, P. F. (1990). Managing the non-profit organization (1st ed.). Wiltshire: Butterworth
Heinemann.
Garstenauer, A., Blackburn, T., & Olson, B. (2015). A knowledge management based approach to
quality management for large manufacturing organizations. Engineering Management Journal,
26(4), 4758.
Gonzalez, R. V. D., & Martins, M. F. (2014). Mapping the organizational factors that support
knowledge management in the Brazilian automotive industry. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 18(1), 152176.
Gruman, J. a., & Saks, A. M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human
Resource Management Review, 21(2), 123136.
Gupta, J. N. ., Sharma, S. K., & Hsu, J. (2008). An overview of knowledge management. Knowledge
management: concept, methodologies, tools and aplications (1st ed., pp. 121). New York:
Information Science Reference.
J., A. (2014). Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance.
International Journal of Productivity & Performance Management, 63, 308.
Jeung, C. W. (2011). The concept of employee engagement: a comprehensive review from a positive
organizational behavior perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24(2), 4969.
Kim, T. H., Lee, J.-N., Chun, J. U., & Benbasat, I. (2014). Understanding the effect of knowledge
management strategies on knowledge management performance: A contingency perspective.
Information & Management, 51(4), 398416.

E-Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR 2015

(e-ISBN 978-967-0792-04-0). 8 & 9 June 2015, Meli Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Organized by http://WorldConferences.net

564

Kim, T. T., & Lee, G. (2013). Hospitality employee knowledge-sharing behaviors in the relationship
between goal orientations and service innovative behavior. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 34, 324337.
Luong, M. (2012). Performance Management and Performance: The mediating role of engagement.
San Jose State University.
Markos, S., & Sridevi, S. (2010). Employee Engagement: The key to improving performance.
International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), 8996.
Marrelli, A. F. (2011). Employee engagement and performance management in the federal sector.
International Society for Performance Improvement, 50(5), 513.
Martn-Prez, V., Martn-Cruz, N., & Estrada-Vaquero, I. (2012). The influence of organizational
design on knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16, 418434.
Mazdeh, M. M., & Hesamamiri, R. (2014). Knowledge management reliability and its impact on
organizational performance: An empirical study. Program: Electronic Library and Information
Systems, 48(2), 102126.
Medlin, B., & Green, K. (2008). The relationship among goal setting, optimism, and engagement: The
impact on employee performance. Of Organizational Culture, 12(1), 5157.
Medlin, B., & Jr, K. W. G. (2009). Enhancing performance through goal setting, engagement, and
optimism. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109, 943956.
Menguc, B., Auh, S., Fisher, M., & Haddad, A. (2013). To be engaged or not to be engaged: The
antecedents and consequences of service employee engagement. Journal of Business Research,
66(11), 21632170.
Mone, E., Eisinger, C., Guggenheim, K., Price, B., & Stine, C. (2011). Performance management at the
wheel: driving employee engagement in organizations. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26,
205212.
Mulyaningsih, H. D., Yudoko, G., & Rudito, B. (2014). Initial conceptual model of knowledge-based
social innovation. World Applied Sciences Journal, 30, 256262.
Nguyen, H. N., & Mohamed, S. (2004). Leadership behaviors, organizational culture and knowledge
management practices An empirical investigation. Journal of Management Development, 30(2),
206221.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamics theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organizational Science,
5(1), 1437.
Richardson, S. (2010). Employee engagement: through effective performance management - a
practical guide for managers. Ergonomics, 53(February 2015), 15061507.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement. North, 408,
1215.
Saks, A. M. (2011). Workplace spirituality and employee engagement. Journal of Management,
Spirituality & Religion, 8(February 2015), 317340.
Sanborn, P., & Oehler, K. (2014). 2014 Trends in Global Employee Engagement. England.
Sanders, M. L., & McClellan, J. G. (2012). Being business-like while pursuing a social mission:
Acknowledging the inherent tensions in US nonprofit organizing. Organization, 21, 6889.
Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Soane, E. C. (2012). The role of employee engagement in the
relationship between job design and task performance, citizenship, and deviant behaviors,
(February 2015), 3741.
Shuck, M. B., Rocco, T. S., & Albornoz, C. a. (2011). Exploring employee engagement from the
employee perspective: implications for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35, 300
325.
Simon, S. S. (2011). The essentials of employee engagement in organizations. Journal of
Contemporary Research in Management, 6, 6372.
Simpson, M. R. (2009). Engagement at work: A review of the literature. International Journal of
Nursing Studies, 46, 10121024.
E-Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR 2015
(e-ISBN 978-967-0792-04-0). 8 & 9 June 2015, Meli Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Organized by http://WorldConferences.net

565

Sokhanvar, S., Matthews, J., & Yarlagadda, P. (2014). The importance of Knowledge Management
Processes in a Project-based organization: a Case Study of research enterprise. Procedia
Engineering, 97, 18251830.
Truss, C., Shantz, A., Soane, E., Alfes, K., & Delbridge, R. (2013). Employee engagement,
organizational performance, and individual well-being: Exploring the evidence, developing the
theory. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(February 2015), 232
233.
Truss, K., Soane, E., Delbridge, R., Alfes, K., Shantz, A., & Petrov, G. (2011). Employee engagement,
organizational performance, and individual well-being: Exploring the evidence, developing the
theory. The International Journal of Human Resource Management.
Tubigi, M., & Alshawi, S. (2015). The impact of knowledge management processes on organizational
performance The case of the airline industry. Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
28(2), 167185.
Vosloban, R. I. (2012). The Influence of the Employees Performance on the Company's Growth - A
Managerial Perspective. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3(12), 660665.
West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2012). Employee engagement and NHS performance. The Kings Fund.
Wu, I.-L., & Chen, J.-L. (2014). Knowledge management driven firm performance: the roles of
business process capabilities and organizational learning. Journal of Knowledge Management,
18(6), 11411164.
Xu, J., & Thomas, H. C. (2011). How can leaders achieve high employee engagement? Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 32, 399416.

E-Proceeding of the International Conference on Social Science Research, ICSSR 2015

(e-ISBN 978-967-0792-04-0). 8 & 9 June 2015, Meli Hotel Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Organized by http://WorldConferences.net

566