How Resilience Affects Employee Engagement? A Case Study in Indonesia

Abstract

This study aims to examine the role of resilience in academic engagement and also to evaluate the theoretical model of the relationships between resilience and engagement. A survey of faculty members in 20 study programs from 12 universities in Jakarta was conducted, Where 247 questionnaires were returned from the 495 distributed. Furthermore, 240 valid data were available for evaluation in order to test the model, and a confirmatory Structural Equation Modelling was conducted, using AMOS 20. Criteria of goodness-fit demonstrated the relatively adequate model, and the coefficient of structural path describes the potential of the links. Three out of four paths available significantly showed the role of developmental persistency and positive emotions on work engagement. The participants of the study include only constituted academics of private universities in Indonesia. Thus there is a need for better care in interpreting the level of resilience and engagement, as engagement may vary when used in a different context. The study suggests interventions for practitioners, not only for academia in the higher education context but also for other professionals in managing engagement at the individual or team level. Therefore, combining resilience and engagement programs may contribute to an enhancement in the productivity of employees.

1. Introduction

The faculty member is a central element in creating a functional higher educational institution (HEI). Moreover, the standard of a university is dependent on the performance and the quality of its academics. This significant role propels HEI management to demand from academics the workload in the three pillars function of teaching, research, and community servicing. Therefore, a faculty member, as an employee, is engaged in a considerably heavy amount of work.

In a private academic setting, HEI management style often leads to identity modification (Harris, 2005), as faculty members are often occupied with roles, which are not their main competencies. Furthermore, there are instances of assignment into many activities, such as being members of committees which are irrelevant to their career, and these stressful, demanding tasks could cause negative effects. These include a reduction in the level of engagement, which is a condition where the employee experiences a psychological connection with the job, devoted towards achieving high performance and aligned to the purpose of the organization. Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) suggest that such an individual possesses a strong dedication to the establishment, charac-terized by elevated level of involvement, in pursuing advancements. Meanwhile, engagement in academics includes those intentionally involved where sense is built, relating to the job and institution, and academics is not only seen as an obligation (Hakanen et al., 2008), but also as an element that provides a sense of commitment, which requires their best efforts, beyond the required expectation.

This is consistent with a study by Bakker et al. (2008), where it was reported that a high level of commitment is observed in those who are engaged in work with full energy, have a positive attitude, and they also contribute to initiatives (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Saks, 2011). Moreover, this could also predict their academic perfor-mance and assist HEI in managing the functionality of the institution.

Requirements and workloads to be accomplished has the potential to decrease engagement, and can provide further tension with the tendency to impair their performance, it can elevate the risk of organizational goals, and target avoidance. Meanwhile, burn-out studies (Schaufeli et al., 2009) showed that employees with too heavy workload lack the capacity to function well because lecturers that play multiple roles are more likely to experience stress. Therefore, resilience as an individual capacity is apparently needed to maintain or improve engagement.

Despite the interest to examine resilience, in association with performance variables, such innovation (Amir, 2014; Rothbard, 2001), and entrepreneurship (Der Foo et al., 2009; Jensen & Luthans, 2006, 2003), and community (Choi & Lee, 2020) there are currently no study specifically focusing on the relationship between resilience and engagement in the higher education sector. Furthermore, examining this provides the probability of a new perspective in organizational behavior and higher educational leadership.

This study explores how academics resilience, which involves the capacity to persevere under work adversities or bounce-back after challenging events, contributes to engagement, and subsequently leads to improvement in academics and higher education performance. This research contributes to organizational science, management, and higher education leadership and also provides insights for administrators to facilitate designs related to capacity development.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Employee Engagement

Kahn (1990) coined the term “employee engagement” and defined it as the psychological presence of an employee in role accomplishment within an organization. Contemporarily, this concept is of considerable interest to practitioners and academics, and Rothbard (2001) also emphasized it, as a psychological presence, involving two main components; attention, which refers to cognitive availability and the amount of time spent by an individual to think about the work, and absorption refers to the intensity of focus attributed to work.

Practitioners define engagement as an alternative to “organizational commitment”, particularly as the affective and continuous dedication (Bakker et al., 2011). Moreover, it is often connoted as involvement, work with enthusiasm, and something closes to being a “workaholic” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2010). However, most parties are often confused about the term “work engagement” based on conviction and energy at work (Maslach & Leiter, 2008). Furthermore, consistent with the above definition, Schaufeli & Bakker (2003) defined it as a condition in positive thoughts and fulfillment, which involves “vigor”, dedication, or absorption at work. Hence, an employee passionately works by attributing dedication and time for organizational achievement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). This also involves interest, enthusiasm, and passion, accompanied by loyalty and full commitment to the job and leadership style (Suong et al., 2019), as well as entrepreneurial proclivity (Lee & Jeong, 2019).

2.2. Understanding Resilience

Prominent models of resilience in current organizational studies originate from Positive Organisational Scholarship (POS) or Positive Organisational behavior (POB) frameworks (Nelson & Cooper, 2007). Meanwhile, some authors tend to see the concept as a necessary response to an increasingly complex and dynamic organizational environment, which causes the workplaces to be more demanding, unfriendly, stressful, and highly competitive (Luthans et al., 2007), while others use it to describe organizational system performance, free from routine or novel disasters (Rudolph & Repenning, 2002). Waterman and Collard (1994, p. 88) examine resilience in employees’ careers, and describes it as a workforce involved in continuous learning, ready for reinvention, takes responsibility for career, andiscommittedto thecompany’s success”. Furthermore, May etal. (2003, p. 334) label morally resilient leaders as “adaptive but assertive individuals that follow their own principles and moral values, while faced with pressures from peers,” while recently, Amir and Standen (2019) proposed a new perspective, which is growth-focus related, where individual see adverse events as an opportunity for development.

2.3. Resilience Potential As the Antecedent of Engagement

A great deal of study has revealed aspects that function as antecedents of employee engagement, including the model from Maslach et al. (2001), using social exchange theory (SET), which explained that a proper interaction with numerous parties creates trust, loyalty, and reciprocal commitment. Hence, when an organization provides econo-mic and socioemotional resources to the employee, the feeling of responsibility to “pay” are enhanced, as well as the will to dedicate physical, emotional, and cognitive resources to organizations.

Kahn (1990) posit that job characteristic, perceived organizational and supervisor support, as well as rewards and recognition (Maslach & Leiter, 2008) are antecedents of employee management. There is a potential for resilience to be an antecedent of the studied concept, especially in its enhancement or strength intensity (figure 3.1). For example, the positive emotion elements may lead to the increased dedication at work, and also a reduction in pressure that may arise psychologically or physically (Fredrickson, 2009), when people are in this condition for a prolonged period. Meanwhile, the perseverance element, as part of development in resilience, may influence engagement, as conducting this enhances the sense of responsibility to finalize a function (Markman et al., 2005), and also the willingness to dedicate. Furthermore, the commitment to grow and create the intent to learn and develop (Blatt, 2009), in order to be absorbed and physical exhaustion may further occur.

Based on the theories above, the following hypotheses are formulated:

H1: Developmental persistency is positively related to the engagement

H2: Positive emotion is positively related to the engagement

3. Method

A total of 495 questionnaires were distributed and 247 were returned (47% participation rate), which is relatively high, considering that generally, professionals tend to participate in research. Furthermore, seven questionnaires were invalid, and 240 were available for further assessment. This number is adequate to conduct factor analysis, as Hinkin (1998) and Costello and Osborne (2005) suggested, and the details of despondence are described in Table I.

Table I: Respondent characteristics

3.1. Data Analysis

Several attributes were used as control variables, which include age, gender, the program of study, tenure, and academic ranking. Therefore, SEM, using AMOS 20, was conducted to run the Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to check the model fit and compare inter-variable relationships, assuming that data were normally distributed (Blunch, 2008; Hair et al., 2013). Hence, “skewness” and “kurtosis” of the information provided were first analyzed, with the critical value used at −0.01 level of confidence, z = +/− 2.58 (Hair et al., 2013, p. 73). However, for the multivariate, norm < 7 from Byrne (2010) was used.

The model estimation used maximum likelihood (ML) method, as this was capable of maximizing the generalization of data, reducing bias, enhancing efficiency, and consistency for a large sample (Kline, 2011, p. 155).

The model fit testing referred to several indices, as suggested by literature (Blunch, 2008), which include chi-square (c²) test, comparative index (CFI) and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). Furthermore, because c² is frequently considered as biased in a large sample, its ratio on the degree of freedom (c²/df) was also used, and the criteria used were as recommended by Kline (2011a) and Byrne (2010): c²/df (< 3); CFI (> 0.9); and RMSEA (< 0.6), with the p-value of PCLOSE > 0.5.

In relation with factor loading, this study used criteria from Tabachnick and Fidell’s (2007, p. 625), and values below 0.32 were described as poor indicators, 0.45 “adequate”, 0.55 “good”, 0.63 “very good”, while 0.71 and above “extraordinary”.

3.2. Measures

Employee engagement scale of measurement was obtained from Saks (2006), which signifies the concept used by Rothbard (2001). Here, two dominant functions of the staff comprises of work role, otherwise known as “work engagement” and member role, or “organizational engagement”. Furthermore, examples of the scale items include “I really “throw” myself into my job”, “Sometimes I am so into my job that I lose track of time”, “I am highly engaged in this job”.

The resilience scale for this study was from Amir (2019), where it was attributed as multi–dimensional, with two elements, including (1) developmental persistency, which is the capacity to be steadfast through adversities, and also committed to grow with positive emotions. Examples of the items are “I tend to recover quickly from sickness and problems”. (2) Positive emotions, which include, “I am usually optimistic and hopeful”, “I tend not to easily give up when a function lacks hope”.

Figure 1: Relationships model of academics resilience and engagement

4. Results

4.1. Control Variable

Prior to the main analysis, variable control was checked, where an independent T-test was conducted, and the results showed that there was no difference between the response on the engagement of male academics (M = 41.33, SD = 3.9 and female (M = 37.04, SD = 3.4), with t (238) = 1.68, and also two-tail test p = 0.49. Furthermore, the results for control evaluation on academic ranking, two tail ANOVA, showed no average difference between tenure (F(2, 238) = 0.62, p = 0.54), and academic ranking (F(3, 237) = 1.4, p = 0.16).

4.2. Normality Test

Univariate and multivariate normality test demonstrated all items in the variables to have acceptable skewness and kurtosis, except for one with skewness 5.1, and multivariate kurtosis was 6.2, which is below the criterion used < 7. These values further support the use of Pearson correlation, conducted in the next stage, and also confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

4.3. Correlations

Inter-dimensions correlation result from two variables was as expected, where the smaller links are on developmental persistency and work engagement (0.31), and self-esteem and developmental persistency was more consistent (0.47). However, a positive association was indicated between the dimensions of resilience and engagement, while that between positive emotions and self-esteem showed consistency of the measured construct. Hence, employee engagement is probably influenced by resilience capacity.

This procedure ensured that self-esteem and related construct with resilience and engagement was consistent with the suggestion of Hinkin (1998) and Netemeyer et al., (2003). These positive correlations between two dimensions (0.45, 0.47, 0.39, and 0.32) provide evidence to assume that the measurement scale was convergent where relationships exist between the variable of interest and the theoretically related construct (Table II).

Table II: Correlations between resilience and engagement

Note: n = 240. Reliability of the scale of measurement is shown in the parentheses on the matrix diagonal. For all correlations p < 0.01 (two-tail).

4.4. CFA Results

Three indices are used to evaluate CFA results; absolute fit – GFI and RMSEA – that indicate recovery of correlations observed between items; incremental fit – TLI and NFI – that compare suggested model on the basis of one factor with all item have unified factor loadings; parsimonious fit – c²/ df – that evaluate model fit by observing the propensity of “overfitting” or not, with the existing data. Norms used for the entire evaluations referred to Hu and Bentler (1999), and Kline (2011), where the goodness-of-fit criteria potential to be accepted where; c²/df ratio < 3, CFI, GFI as well as TLI and NFI > 0.90, RMSEA < 0.06.

The fitness of estimate parameter is evaluated according to the procedure of Byrne (2010), in order to ensure the model quality. This involves examining the sign and size of the estimates and the propensity of the direction of study being as expected with the hypothesis model.

4.5. Measurement Model

Consistent with the procedures of Anderson & Gerbing (1991), a measurement model was checked, prior to the evaluation of the structural relationship model. This has been followed by several psychological studies, for example, (Liu et al., 2013). Meanwhile, the measurement variety is summarized by four inter-correlated latent variables, which include two dimension of resilience (developmental persistency – DEV and positive emotion -POS), and also two for engagement (Work engagement – WE, and Organizational engagement – OE).

Evaluation of c² value on the measurement model resulted in a relatively inadequate good-fit of confirmatory model (χ²(293) = 816,71 p < 0.00). Moreover, as mentioned in the method section, χ² is often not sufficient as a basis for evaluation (Byrne, 2010; MacCallum et al., 1996), while the ratio χ²/df was 2.78, and according to norm < 3, the described data was relatively fit with the model matrix. Similarly, the CFI value was 0.92, following the norm > 0.9, and for RMSEA, it also comparatively supported the good-fit of the relationship model, where the value was 0.051 (PCLOSE = 0.47). Furthermore, the details of these results are selectively summarized below (Table III).

Table III: The summary of CFA structural model

Following the guide from Byrne (2010), parameter sign and sizes were all carefully considered as expected. However, none was irrational, in the form of negative variance or correlation > 1, and most of the standard errors were acceptable, i.e., between 0.1–0.4. Hence, there was no value markedly too high or low, as all CR (critical ratio) > 1.96, and the examination of items factor loadings in the two variables also showed good value at the point where the criterion > 0.3 was met.

4.6. Structural Model

SEM results based on structural model, also demonstrated relative fit with the data (²(294) = 908,46 p < 0.00). This was relatively poor and consistent with the measurement variety, where some value of the good-fit indices had out of criteria. The ratio of ²/df was 3.09, and out of the criteria, but it was better than in the measurement model. Meanwhile, CFI was .88, and out or norm > 0.9, which is similar to the measurement model. Furthermore, only the criterion of RMSEA (structural model) met the criteria 0.049 (PCLOSE = 0.51), and Table 4 summarizes the details.

The results above revealed that the relationship model of resilience and engagement met most of the criteria, except the RMSEA, and the respecification procedure was checked by observing the modification index. However, there was only minimal improvement in the quality of the model.

According to Byrne’s (2010) guide, parameter sign, and size assessed were all expected, and none was irrational, such as negative variance or correlations above 1. Most of the standard errors were acceptable between 0.1 and 0.4, and no value was extremely large or small. Furthermore, all of the CR (critical ratio) values > 1.96.

Examination of factor loading items in both variables was indicated good on assessment, and none was < 0.32.

4.7. Structural Path

Information on regression and factor loadings of the four paths of relationship model of resilience – engagement is shown in Table IV, while factor loadings, following Garson’s (n.d.) guide, were studied with the use of one sample standardized regression.

Table IV: Selected unstandardized parameter estimates and factor loadings

The overall model evaluation shows that no correlation direction differs from the hypotheses. Furthermore, none was higher than 1, as well as the negative variances, and there was no extreme standard error.

Three of the four paths were statistically significant, where factor loadings were good, and the criteria used were met. The path from Developmental persistency to Work engagement and Organization has 0.32 and 0.45 factor loading consecutively. However, positive emotions to organizational engagement have values that are relatively high “at 0.63”. Therefore, one path from positive emotion to work engagement was insignificant, with values out of criteria 0.13. Hence, the elaboration of these four channels is presented in the next sections.

5. Discussion

Employee engagement plays a major role in ensuring organizational effectiveness, and various studies have demonstrated its manageability, considering the context of the organization, workload, control, reward, and social support (Saks, 2006). Moreover, other researchers have suggested that managing the supervisor-staff relationship, as well as proper work design, may increase the level of engagement (Maslach & Leiter, 2008b). Furthermore, some individual conditions, which could be psychological, as in meaningfulness, availability, safety, and efficacy also significantly, play a role. Hence, resilience capacity is overlooked as a predictor of employee engagement.

This study contributes to the concept and practice by managing engagement through the observation of the role of resilience, and subsequently, the production of its empirical evidence. Moreover, the results showed that developmental persistency (DEV), as well as a positive emotion (POS) is capable of influencing both work (WE) and organizational engagement (OE). The below sections give details on this involvement.

There are two main points that possibly explain this significance, which include resilience in POS perspective considered as developmental, where managers could operate it for engagement purpose. This is, however, imperative, as there is a need for employees to maintain and improve their engagement, while business environment and context sometimes force the incidence of change. Furthermore, in cases where staff are aware and possess the skills to manage interpersonal resilience, the downside of engagement may, therefore, be avoided. Thus, it is reported to be disadvantageous when excessive performance is noticed.

5.1. Contribution to the Study of Engagement

The findings reveal a new perspective on proactivity in developing employee engagement, as the resilience concept refers to the practicality of facing work challenges in order for potentials to be managed and enhanced. Therefore, an intentional elevation of these characteristics, through difficulties, also leads to an increased level of engagement. This is consistent with earlier findings by Britt et al. (2007), where self-engagement involved the responsibility and commitment to excel and observe achievement as necessary. Hence, self-control and consistency between work, and self-identity, was identified as its antecedents. However, although this seems similar, the present study illustrates is the presence of an intentional effort by the employee to build this character, rather than only passively or automatically.

This deliberate concept is valuable, as there is the possibility of being trapped in an organization where no engagement program is observed. Furthermore, this is in line with the idea of a state-work engagement of Sonnentag et al. (2010), where its practice is not always similar in the “work context.” However, in an establishment, there is often an expected organizational context, which fosters the need to concentrate on work challenges and enjoy the supports of caring supervisors, presence of complete facilities, and the opportunity to grow, while other organizations exist, where challenges are excessive, structure, system, and supervisors are unsupportive.

Decreasing disengagement

An employee with low level of engagement could be defined as disengagement. This relationship is clearly explained by the JobDemand-Resources (JD-R) theory (Bakker et al., 2007), which stated Job demands as physical, social or organizational aspects that needs to be presented, characterized by the potential to create problems for an employee. Furthermore, job resources are conditions that functions for the employee, which could be physical, psychological, and organizational, in order to mitigate the job demand. This functions in handling an appointments’ purpose by stimulating growth, learning and development. Thus a higher demand than availability of resource tends to foster disengagement. These present investigation results, therefore, suggest that resilience be considered as one of the substantial resources of the employee. Hence, increasing it could lead to an elevation in resources, which is capable of subsequently mitigating the difficulties of the job-demand.

Another contribution is centered on the anticipation of negative consequences of engagement, as indicated by several studies, e.g., Maslach & Leiter (2008) or Schaufeli & Bakker (2004) discussed job burn-out, which is a situation where a loss in psychological energy is experienced as the downside of an engagement. Similarly, Britt et al., (2007) also suggested that only those with an adequate amount of the necessary resources are voluntarily responsible and perform better. Additionally, in the absence of capacities that enable success, the feeling of responsibility is more likely to be harmful or create bad consequences for the individual or organization.

5.2. Contribution to the Study of Resilience

An employees’ resilience capacity has been studied as a beneficial character, which enables the human function. Therefore, in an organizational context, studies demonstrated its advantages, with regards to performance (Amir & Standen, 2019; Avey et al., 2011; Luthans et al., 2011), by describing the relationship between resilience and high intensity of adversities. However, the results of the present research showed that its role could be expanded to simple challenges at work. Furthermore, following Luthans et al. (2015) suggestions, understanding this concept in the context of the absence of adverse events is beneficial to design avoiding strategies. Therefore, when an employee experiences undesirable or risky situations, preparedness is important, and resilience becomes a capacity considered for the well-being of the employee.

The relationship between resilience and engagement

Developmental persistency – Work engagement

Developmental persistency (DEV) includes functions capable of providing the effect of passion, where people could survive and be absorbed in the workplace, and therefore experience work engagement (WE). This is consistent with the concept of passion from Perttula and Cardon (2011), where the employee possesses a psychological condition, which characterizes intense positive emotions that drive towards completing tasks and a sense of meaning on the job. Therefore, academics that passionately tend to have high performance is as a result of extra efforts and time put in.

Other possible explanations for the relationship between DEV and WE include the probability of DEV to leverage academics engagement in relation to elevating the level of concentration on the job as a means of fulfilling responsibilities. This is in line with the concept of focus on duty (Mitchell & Daniels, 2003); focusing on the job enhanced the ability to analyze problems, regulate priority, and assemble the mind and the physical energy in tackling challenges. Furthermore, an increase in work engagement is observed in time. Hence, for a person whose task focus is also known, methods to harness their strength on finalizing the job while working efficiently and learning from mistakes must be assessed.

The growth component of DEV also propels those facing situations of uncertainty at work that requires new ideas: Some tasks may be full of risks, and there is a lack of experience, which makes the solutions to be unknown. Therefore, such situations rely on the element of commitment to growth, where exploration of alternatives to solutions is necessary.

Developmental persistency – Organizational engagement

The element of development persistency (DEV) possibly plays a significant role in maintaining and increasing organizational engagement in two ways, including (1) Instances where the establishment provides adequate resources to carry out the job. The resilient employee, therefore, has a sense of responsibility and ownership. Hence, the element of commitment to growth in DEV awakens an employee to the possibility that success is always supported by an organization, systematically or physically. (2) This element functions by respecting and tolerating organizations that have limited resources. Therefore, in cases where economic, social resources are perceived as below normal, resilient academics reinforce by saving and paying back subsequently. This is conducted by intentionally bounding, dedicating cognitive, emotional, and physical resources, which is in line with the study of Sweetman & Luthans (2010), where resilience enables the employee to challenge personal assumptions, and further develop enhanced strength by adapting to the situations. Moreover, the employee – organization relationship is always maintained, although the situation is not always desirable.

Positive emotion – Organizational Engagement

If the Dev – OE enables a reinforcement with the organization, positive emotions (POS) further provides the effect of buffering, in situations where the situation of OE worsens.

POS is capable of serving as a buffer in raising job demand, which is in accordance with Sweetmen & Luthans (2010), indicating its role in recharging sentiments. Furthermore, it decreases disengagement due to the propensity of modifying perceptions to the tentative stressor. This is consistent with psychological studies, where positive emotions help the individual recognize alternative perspectives that prevent disengagement, as a prospective path in handling problems (Fredrickson & Branigan, 2005), which in this case entails the requirements of a task.

Other relevant studies that may explain the phenomena of POS in OE include the positive sensation in adapting to environmental changes (Cohn et al., 2009). This provides self-confidence and an optimistic outlook, helps employees maintain the attempts to retain a good perception and benevolence from the organization. However, other related studies, for example, (Tugade et al., 2004) reported that a resilient individual tends to experience the POS through stressful events of their counterpart employees.

The concept of purpose-centered from Quinn and Quinn (2009) also possibly explains the phenomenon of DEV-OE: Positive emotions helps an employee to be purpose-centered, and not only focused on solving problems, but concentrated on the ultimate purpose when challenged with a decrease in the resources of the organization.

5.3. Managerial Implications

There have been studies that suggest how interventions in developing this concept, either at the individual, group, or at the level of organization (Leiter & Maslach, 2010), includes approaches to avoid burn-out, by directly influencing subjective engagement in order to experience vigor, and dedication. Furthermore, at the team level, experts discussing job redesign, training, development, and change of supervisor, while based on the context of the management system, academics suggest manipulating the situations for it to be conducive to the work engagement and relatively not contributing to the burnout.

Several interventions that are generally conducted by organizational psychologist practitioners to manage resilience, ought to be studied by managers, including Penn Resilience Program (Reivich & Shatte, 2003) or Master Resilience Training Course (MRTC) (Reivich et al., 2011). This is due to their focus on factors that contribute, identified in many studies, such as optimism, problem-solving, self-efficacy and awareness, or mental agility development, which is involved in “building mental toughness”. Moreover, training modules, which use cognitive-behavioral therapy skills, involves “character strength,” through positive characters, suggested by Peterson and Seligman (2004). These help the employee to develop strength, internal processes, increase self-regulation, help in perspective modification, and challenge identity, as well as to assess the confidence level of an employee, based on self-control towards reality.

5.4. Limitations of the Study

Insignificant path; involving positive emotions (POS) and work engagement (WE), where the result is unexpected and out of the hypothesis, while theoretically, POS is closely related to the WE, as indicated by numerous studies. Furthermore, one of the possible explanations of the insignificant path includes the moderating variables, which requires further studies, as well as more detailed evaluations on questionnaire items, and the possibility of cultural bias.

Limitations related to the participants of this study, which were only constituted from 15 private universities in Jakarta: Despite that accreditation, level was used as a control, the conditions of these institutions can be different, which probably enhances variance in the response, coupled with subsequent implications for the quality of questionnaire on resilience and engagement. Hence, more care is required in their level of interpretation.

5.5. Future Research Directions

Engagement concepts generally measure the level of engagement on a job, which involves main tasks that may differ from one another. However, there are possibilities that an employee may participate in one task, and not in the other, e.g. an academic may be more involved in lecturing and not engaging in research and community service. Therefore, as Britt et al. (2007) suggest, the context of works being sometimes more specific leads to a possibility of varying levels of engagement. This is an interesting avenue to examine the differentiation, especially in cases where resilience and its levels probably take a different role.

As regards the method, resilience or engagement research has rarely been conducted through a longitudinal approach and an investigation by Avey et.al. (2008), showed instances where studies in the positive organizational behavior domain consider the longitudinal design. Meanwhile, through a pre-post examination and subsequent evaluation, there is a probability of it measuring the role of resilience. This approach, therefore, illustrates the possibility to identify the interventions that fit more and also affect sustained engagement. However, the next challenge includes the method applied to link its results, as the organization has different situations and challenges. This difficulty requires future studies to consult and consider the Latent Growth Curve model, which is an approach of SEM for research questions related to changes (Byrne, 2010). Similarly, because engagement is a psychological condition, which is subjective to change, the method of daily notes (Ouweneel et al., 2012) and seeing the process through, as a “state-like” conducted by Breevaart et al. (2015), are also of interest to be considered.

6. Conclusion

This research reported antecedents and factors that determine the level of employee engagement, and resilience seems overlooked, particularly in the context of higher education. Therefore, this model examines its relationship with resilience, which consists of developmental persistency and positive emotions that possesses an element of work and organizational engagement. Although the goodness-of-fit evaluation showed a relatively inadequate, the correlations suggest a potential relationship between the two constructs. Developmental persistency and dedication to growth help academics to maintain absorption with work, therefore, maintaining passion and focus on the tasks. Conversely, positive emotion also assists in the sustenance of respect for the establishment, particularly when the facilities are at an undesirable level. Hence, institutions and managers should consider taking to intervention programs of resilience, complement existing practices in order to conserve and enhance the engagement of academics.