Perceptions Effect of Organizational Support on Employees Work
Engagement
Friyanka H. D. Sitorus, Cipto Winner Simanjuntak and Irvan
Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Prima Indonesia, Indonesia
Keywords: work engagement, perceived organizational support, labor-intensive companies.
Abstract: Human resources are the main capital for a labor-intensive company. One of the potential factors to make
human resources a competitive advantage for companies is work attachment. To build work engagement
requires a two-way relationship between employees and the company. This study aims to examine the effect
of perceived organizational support on employee work engagement using a quantitative approach with
convenience sampling technique (involving 201 permanent employees in a labor-intensive company
engaged in manufacturing). The data were obtained through a survey method by distributing a scale
consisting of work engagement and perceived organizational support. The results of statistical analysis show
that perceived organizational support has a significant and positive effect on work engagement. This means
that the higher the work attachment to employees, the stronger perceived organizational support. The
implication of this research can help the company to increase work engagement by strengthening the
support that the organization provides to employees.
1 INTRODUCTION
In this era of globalization, organizations are faced
with various challenges in running their business.
These challenges can come from various aspects
both internal and external, such as economy, socio-
culture, politics, law, technology, and infrastructure.
In relation to the goals and objectives of the
organization, this condition requires the organization
to be able to show its best performance so that it can
compete and even develop (Adeoye & Elegunde,
2012).
To remain competitive, an organization must
have a number of resources. These resources include
physical, financial, marketability, and human
resources. Of all these resources, human resources
are one of the most potential factors to provide a
competitive advantage for organizations (Fisher,
Schoenfeldt & Shaw, 2006). In an effort to build a
strategy that places human resources as a
competitive advantage, the ultimate goal that must
be achieved is to create employees who have a high
level of work engagement (Dale Carnegie &
Associates, 2012). Schaufeli and Bakker (2004)
argue that organizations that have human resources
with high work engagement are able to maintain and
improve performance even though the surrounding
conditions are less conducive (Matthews, 2018).
These problems tend to hinder the achievement
of optimal company performance. Several
complaints that oftenly reflected from customers are
product defects, packaging errors and product
delivery. The customer complaints (related to
product defects, shipping errors and product
packaging) indicate less than optimal company
performance. This is of course closely related to the
human resources owned by the company, especially
in labor-intensive companies that depend on their
business process journey on their human resources.
According to Markos and Sridevi (2010), human
resources in an organization with disengaged
employee will result in low commitment, low
customer orientation, high percentage of
absenteeism and tend to make mistakes in work
which then affects performance achievement.
organization (Markos & Sridevi, 2010; Bullen,
2018). Even in the findings of (Ibrahim et al, 2020)
it is said that employees who do not have work
engagement can bring loss and damage to the
organization.
Meanwhile, a high level of work engagement
will provide positive results on organizational
success where an organization that has employees
with a high level of work engagement is predicted to
Sitorus, F., Simanjuntak, C. and Irvan, .
Perceptions Effect of Organizational Support on Employees Work Engagement.
DOI: 10.5220/0010370000003051
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tour ism, and Innovation Technologies (CESIT 2020), pages 615-621
ISBN: 978-989-758-501-2
Copyright
c
 2022 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
615

experience an increase in customer satisfaction,
productivity, and profitability (Kular, et al, 2008;
Johari et al, 2019). Even in unfavorable conditions,
employees with high work engagement are able to
maintain and improve their work performance
(Schaufeli dan Bakker, 2004). Thus, it is important
for companies to frequently evaluate the level of
work engagement of their employees with human
resources as one of the most potential factors to
provide a competitive advantage for organizations in
order to survive in global market competition.
(Fisher, Schoenfeldt & Shaw, 2006; Showkat, 2020).
Robinson, Perryman & Hayday (2004) argued
that the organization's treatment of employees is an
important factor affecting work engagement. In this
case, organizational treatment that can increase
employee work engagement is quality management
support with indicators of superior concern for
employees in the form of encouragement to show
their best performance, as well as paying attention to
career development. In addition, organizational
commitment to employee welfare, as well as fairness
in terms of salaries and benefits is also an
organizational treatment that can increase work
engagement.
Organizational treatment has a great impact on
employees and this is known as the perception of
organizational support which is also the employee's
perception of the extent to which he feels that the
organization appreciates his work contribution and
cares for his welfare (Eisenberger, Huntington,
Hutchison & Sowa, 1986; Kurtessis et al, 2017).
Eisenberger, Malone and Presson (2016) suggest
that perception of organizational support is an
important factor in efforts to develop work
engagement within a company. This construct
becomes important in relation to an increasingly
competitive environment (making employees more
concerned about the extent to which the organization
pays attention to their welfare) (Eisenberger et al.,
2016).
According to Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel,
Lynch, and Rhoades (2001), the given treatment by
the organization to employees will direct how an
employee treat the organization which ultimately
affect the level of employee work engagement.
Research by Rhoades, Eisenberger & Armeli (2001)
shows that employees with positive perceptions of
organizational support become more engaged in
work and organization in an effort to help the
organization achieve its goals.
Similar research was conducted by Rich, Lepine
& Crawford (2010) and Ram and Prahbkar (2011)
who found that perceived organizational support is
an important predictor of work engagement. Sun
(2019) found that perceived organizational support
is an important factor that can create good
relationships between employees and the
organization where they work and motivate
employees to work hard. Furthermore, Ahmadi,
Tavakoli & Heidary (2014) in their research related
to perceptions of organizational support and work
engagement also show results where perceptions of
organizational support for work engagement have a
positive influence. Likewise, Saks (2006) stated the
belief that if organizations pay attention and care
about their welfare, employees will try to fulfill their
obligations by becoming more attached to the
company.
Based on the above explanation, the effect of
perceived organizational support on the level of
work engagement of employees at PT X needs to be
tested. Considering that this company is a labor-
intensive company that relies on its business process
journey on its human resources, it is very important
to evaluate the level of employee work engagement
in it in an effort to ensure the company's success in
facing global market competition.
Employees are one of the main actors in the
organizational structure, where their involvement,
commitment, and attachment to their work and tasks
make the organization competitive (Adeoye &
Elegunde, 2012). Employees with a high level of
work engagement will find it easier to manage work
relationships, manage stress on work pressures and
manage change. In this case, work engagement is a
form of key work attitudes, namely forms of
employee work behavior that can assist management
in achieving company performance targets (Kreitner
& Kinicki, 2010).
Furthermore, Kreitner and Kinicki (2010)
suggest that the interest of company management in
knowing and evaluating the level of work
engagement of employees in their company is
accompanied by the belief that employees with high
work engagement are able to give extra effort at
work and have more commitment and loyalty to the
company. Conversely, if the sense of work
attachment is low, then behavior will appear such as:
employees work ineffectively and less efficiently, do
not show full commitment to their work, are not
interested in making changes in the organization,
and always feel worried about all forms of
evaluation such as performance surveys.
The used concept in this research is work
engagement. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) define
work engagement as a condition in which a person
feels satisfied and has positive thoughts on their
CESIT 2020 - International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies
616

work which is characterized by high enthusiasm
(vigor), dedication and focus / appreciation
(absorption) in doing work. Vigor is characterized
by a work climate that is full of energy and mental
resilience and a willingness to put in more effort to
work and survive despite many difficulties.
Dedication is characterized by full involvement in
his work and feeling the importance, enthusiasm,
inspiration, pride, and challenges in his work.
Absorption is characterized by a climate that is full
of concentration and preoccupation in carrying out
work, time passes quickly and it is difficult to get
away from the work.
Employees with a high level of work
engagement are builders. They know what
expectations they want, therefore they can fulfill and
achieve them. They naturally have curiosity about
the company and the place where they currently
work. They consistently do work at a high level
using their talents or talents and strengths every day.
They work with passion and drive innovation and
move the organization forward. The characteristics
of employees with a high level of work engagement
are enthusiastic, passionate and passionate about
work, loyal, motivated, committed, and productive.
They have strong emotions and are loyal to their
workplaces and driven to succeed.
Conversely, employees with a low level of work
engagement tend to concentrate only on tasks rather
than goals or results. They just want to know what to
do then do it and say they got it done. They focus on
fulfilling a task rather than achieving an outcome.
Employees with a low level of work engagement
tend to feel that their contributions are being
neglected, and that their abilities are not beneficial.
They are willing to work hard and contribute but
lack the drive for achievement and it is likely that it
is easy to leave the company if there is a more
attractive offer elsewhere.
There are several factors in the emergence of
work engagement in an organization. Robinson,
Perryman & Hayday (2004) indicate a number of
factors below as important factors affecting the level
of work engagement, including: a. quality
management, characterized by the attitude of
managers who care about their employees,
informative, provide fair treatment, encourage
employees to show their best performance, and pay
attention to the career development of their
employees; b. two-way communication and open
within the organization; c. the effective cooperation
between different departments and functions, as well
as between management and trade unions; d. focus
on employee development; e. organizational
commitment to employee welfare; and f. fairness in
terms of salaries and benefits that include
comparisons both within and outside the
organization.
The theory regarding perceived organizational
support was originally developed by Eisenberger et
al., (1986). The development of the theory of
perceived organizational support is based on social
exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and reciprocity norm
(Gouldner, 1960). This theory deals with the
relationship between employees and organizations.
In his view, the relationship between employees and
the organization is a reciprocal relationship (social
exchange theory), where the organization provides
employees with appropriate rewards and good
working conditions in the hope that this can make
employees loyal and provide more work effort (Yin,
2018).
According to Eisenberger et al. (1986), perceived
organizational support is defined as employees'
perceptions of the extent to which the organization
values their contributions and cares for their well-
being. The meta-analysis of perceptions of
organizational support conducted by Rhoades and
Eisenberger (2002) describes three aspects of
employee perceived organizational support, namely:
(i) Awards from the organization and conditions of
work
This aspect shows that recognition of
employee contributions will be positively
related to perceptions of organizational
support. Working conditions and rewards that
are considered to be related to perceptions of
organizational support, include: recognition,
salary and promotion; job security; autonomy
of work; training (Shore and Shore, 1995).
(ii) Support from superiors
The term perception of superiors' support is
more often used to describe this factor. Kottke
and Sharafinski (1988) define perceptions of
superiors 'support as employees' belief in the
superior's concern for their contributions and
welfare. In this case, the subordinates see the
superior as an extension of the organization.
How companies treat their employees through
managerial behavior will strongly influence
employees' perceptions of organizational
support. This is then considered the
organization's informal reward for quality
performance which is one way of sending
messages to employees about a form of
concern for their well-being, the value of their
contribution and demonstrating supportive
behavior.
Perceptions Effect of Organizational Support on Employees Work Engagement
617

(iii) A sense of Justice
Organizational procedural fairness focuses on
a sense of fairness (fairness) in the distribution
of resources among employees. Repeated
experiences with fair decisions in determining
the distribution of resources will have an
accumulative effect on perceptions of
organizational support, because it signals the
organization's concern for employee welfare.
Types of rewards such as salary, promotion,
job enrichment, and influence on
organizational policies will also increase the
perception of organizational support, which
indicates the organization's positive evaluation
of employees.
Dabke and Patole (2014) suggest that one of the
impacts of perceived organizational support which
important for organizations is work engagement.
Similar research was conducted by Rich, Lepine and
Crawford (2010); Ram and Prahbkar (2011); Burns
(2016); Eisenberger, Malone and Presson (2016)
who also suggest that perceived organizational
support is a predictor in developing employee work
engagement within a company. From the previous
description, this study has a hypothesis that there is a
positive influence on perceived organizational
support on work engagement.
2 METHOD
This study uses a quantitative approach with
convenience sampling technique for sampling the
study. A total of 201 permanent employees at PT. X
was involved as a participant. The data collection
method used in this study is a survey method by
distributing a scale consisting of work engagement
and a perceived scale of organizational support, each
of which consists of 7 answer choices.
Researchers used 7 answer choices on each
research scale with the aim of overcoming the
limitations of the midpoint on using the Likert scale
in the answer choices. Cummins & Gullone (2000)
suggested that the limitation of the midpoint can be
reduced by increasing the scale sensitivity which
means increasing the number of scale choices. Some
researchers have shown that increasing scale
sensitivity can decrease the tendency to choose a
midpoint (Matell & Jacoby, 1972; Cummins &
Gullone, 2000; Tsang, 2012). Furthermore, it is said
that the choice of the midpoint tends to occur more
frequently on a scale of 3 choices and a scale of 5
choices, but less on a scale of 7 choices.
The work engagement scale consists of 14 items
with 7 answer choices ranging from never to always.
The reliability of the work engagement scale
obtained from the used test using the Cronbach's
Alpha method was 0.847 with the construct validity
value that moved from the number 0.50 to 0.80.
The perceived organizational support scale
consists of 13 items with 7 answer choices ranging
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The
reliability of the perceived scale of organizational
support obtained from the used test using the
Cronbach's Alpha method is 0.839 with the construct
validity value that moves from the number 0.570 to
0.889.
The data analysis method used to test the
hypothesis in this study is statistical analysis in the
form of simple regression using the help of the SPSS
version 16 for windows program.
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Morrow and McElroy (1987) divided the tenure into
three stages, namely the establishment stage,
advancement stage, and maintenance stage with a
service period of under 2 years, 2-10 years, and
above 10 years, respectively. The general
description of the research subjects obtained from
the personal data or identities of the 201 subjects
listed on the research scale, including: establishment
stage, advancement stage, and maintenance stage are
3%, 30.8%, and 66.2%, respectively. The rules of
the Law of the Republic of Indonesia, that the
applicable working age in Indonesia is 15 - 64 years
old. Super (1990) suggests the stages of career
development are divided into five, namely: the
growth stage (0-14 years), the exploration /
exploration stage (15-24 years), the establishment
stage (25-44), the maintenance stage / maintenance
(45-64) and decline stage (65+). In this study, the
subjects were in the exploration stage, determination
and decline were 4.5%, 61.2%, and 24.3%,
respectively.
The hypothesis of this study is that there is a
positive influence on perceived organizational
support on work engagement. Hypothesis testing is
done using simple regression analysis. From the
results of the simple regression statistical test
between the effect of perceived organizational
support (X) and work engagement (Y), it is found
that perceptions of organizational support have a
significant positive effect on work engagement. The
results of the regression model for perceived
organizational support for work engagement found
CESIT 2020 - International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies
618

an F value of 65,362 with a significance level (p) of
0.000. Thus, it can be concluded that perceived
organizational support has a significant effect on
work engagement. To find out the magnitude of the
influence of perceived organizational support on
work engagement, the R determination test was
carried out with the results as shown in Table 1,
where OSP is Organizational support perceptions on
work engagement, ARS is Adjusted R Square, RSE
is Std. Error of the Estimate.
Table 1: Results of the Determination R Perception of
Organizational Support.
Model R R
2
ARS RSE
OSP 0.497 0.247 0.243 11.6
The results also show that perceived
organizational support has a positive and significant
effect on work engagement. This means that the
stronger the organizational support perceived by
employees, the higher the level of work engagement.
Based on Table 1, it can be seen that the R value
of 0.497 is positive, which means that there is a
positive influence between the perception of
organizational support and work engagement,
meaning that the stronger organizational support is
perceived by the research subject, the higher the
level of work engagement.
The results of the hypothesis testing above are
supported by the results of research from the value
of the determinant coefficient (adjusted R square)
which is 0.243, meaning that the contribution of the
perception variable of organizational support to
work engagement is 24.3% while the remaining
75.7% is explained by other causes outside the
research model. . Thus, from the above explanation
it can be concluded that the hypothesis in this study
is accepted, perceptions of organizational support
have a positive and significant effect on work
engagement.
An overview of the perceived score of
organizational support for employees at PT. X can
be seen through the difference between the empirical
mean and the hypothetical mean of the perceived
organizational support scale score as in Table 2.
Based on Table 2, the empirical mean perceived
organizational support is 57.11 with a standard
deviation of 13.54. Meanwhile, the hypothetical
mean is 52 with a standard deviation of 13. From the
comparison between the empirical mean and the
hypothetical mean of the perceived organizational
support score, it can be seen that the empirical mean
is greater than the hypothetical mean (57.11> 52).
This shows that in general the organizational support
perceived by the research subjects is stronger than
the organizational support perceived by the study
population.
Table 2: Hypothetical and Empirical Means of Job
Engagement.
In norming the scores on each study scale, three
categories were selected. The work engagement
scale has an average value of 57.94, where this score
belongs to the high category, which means that most
of the respondents have a high level of work
engagement. The scale of perceived organizational
support has an average of 57.11 where this score
belongs to the medium category, which means that
most research subjects perceive the support provided
by the company to be in the medium category.
Furthermore, based on the mean and standard
deviation values, categorization is carried out based
on hypothetical values as in Table 3. Based on the
categorization of Table 3, it can be seen that most of
the research subjects perceive the support provided
by the company to be in the moderate category,
namely 119 people (59.2%). While 61 people
(30.3%) perceived that the support provided was in
the strong category and the rest perceived the
support provided by weak companies, namely as
many as 21 people (10.5%). Based on the
categorization of Table 4, it can be seen that most of
the research subjects had a relatively high level of
work engagement, namely 118 people (58.7%).
Meanwhile, only 4 people (2%) were classified as
low and the rest were in the moderate category,
namely 79 people (39.3%).
Table 3: Categorization of Organizational Support
Perceptions Scores (V is variables, VR is value range, C is
category, and f is frequency).
V VR C f
OPS X > 65 Strong 61
39 < X < 65 Medium 119
X < 39 Weak 21
Total 201
Perceptions Effect of Organizational Support on Employees Work Engagement
619

Table 4: Categorization of Job Engagement Scores (WE is
work engagement).
VR C f
WE X > 56 High 118
28 < X < 56 Medium 79
X < 28 Low 4
Total 201
Perceptions of organizational support are
employees' beliefs about the extent to which the
organization values their contributions and cares for
their well-being. This perception reflects the belief
that the organization intends to reward the efforts of
its employees, the organization appreciates the
employees' contribution in achieving organizational
goals and pays attention to the welfare of its
employees. (Eisenberger et al., 1986).
Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) suggest that the
relationship formed between employees and
organizations is a reciprocal relationship. In this
case, organizations that create favorable conditions
for their employees will benefit from a positive
attitude that will be given by their employees.
Employees who perceive the support provided by a
strong organization will feel obliged to help the
company achieve its goals.
In line with the results found, the company has
rewarded employees' contributions, paid attention to
welfare, built employee perceptions about the
treatment the company has given. This in turn
creates an employee's obligation to repay the
treatment that has been received by fostering a
positive attitude towards work quality which is then
called work attachment.
Research by Dai and Qin (2016) found that if
employees get strong support in the form of
emotional, financial or career development, they will
foster a sense of belonging. This refers to Maslow's
hierarchy of needs where everyone feels the need to
be cared for and appreciated. This condition will
then foster a sense of belonging in employees so that
the attachment to the organization will be even
higher.
Other studies have also confirmed that work
engagement with employees is a significant impact
generated by perceived organizational support.
When employees feel that their welfare is considered
and their contribution is appreciated by the
organization, their enthusiasm, dedication and
appreciation in work will increase (Biswas &
Bhatnagar, 2013; Saks, 2006). This is in line with
Rubel and Kee (2013) where perceptions of
organizational support for work engagement have a
positive and significant effect. In this case the
perception of organizational support can stimulate
employees to be more attached to their roles in
work. This condition makes employees strive to
achieve organizational goals by showing a high level
of work engagement.
4 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results obtained in this study, it can be
concluded that the perception of organizational
support has a positive and significant effect on work
engagement among employees. This means that the
stronger the support from the company that is
perceived by the employees, the higher the level of
employee work engagement.
SUGGESTION
Based on this research, it can be seen that the
average employee still perceives that organizational
support from the company is still at the medium
category level and there are even some employees
who perceive it as weak. This shows that the
company still has room to raise perceived
organizational support by increasing its support for
employees. Types of rewards such as salary,
promotion, job enrichment, and influence on
organizational policies that are fairly given will
reinforce perceptions of organizational support,
which indicates the organization's positive
evaluation of employees.
REFERENCES
Adeoye, A. O., & Elegunde, A. F., 2012. Impacts of
external business environment on organisational
performance in the food and beverage industry in
Nigeria. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences,
6(2), 194-201.
Ahmadi, S. A., Tavakoli, S., & Heidary, P. R., 2014.
Perceived organizational support and employee
engagement. International Journal of Information
Technology and Management Studies, 1(1) 54-66.
Biswas, S., & Bhatnagar, J., 2013. Mediator analysis of
employee engagement: Role of perceived
organizational support, P-O fit, organizational
commitment and job satisfaction. VIKALPA, 38, 27-
40.
Blau, P. M., 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New
York: John Wiley.
CESIT 2020 - International Conference on Culture Heritage, Education, Sustainable Tourism, and Innovation Technologies
620

Burns, K. L., 2016. Perceived organizational support and
perceived supervisor support as antecedents of work
engagement. (Tesis). San Jose State University.
Cummins, R. A., & Gullone, E., 2000. Why we should not
use 5-point Likert scales: The case for subjective
quality of life measurement. Paper presented at the
Proceedings, Second International Conference on
Quality of Life, Singapore: National University of
Singapore.
Dabke, D., & Patole, S., 2014. Predicting employee
engagement: Role of perceived organizational support
and perceived superior support. Tactful Management
Research Journal, 3(1), 1-8.
Dai, K., & Qin, X., 2016. Perceived organizational support
and employee engagement: Based on the research of
organizational identification and organizational
justuce.Open Journal of Science, 4, 46-57.
Dale Carnegie & Associates., 2012. What drives employee
engagement and why it matters. Dale Carnegie
Training White Paper, 1-6.
Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B., Lynch, P. D.,
& Rhoades, L., 2001. Reciprocation of perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 42–51.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa,
D., 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500-507.
Eisenberger, R., Malone, G.P. & Presson, W.D., 2016.
Optimizing perceived organizational support to
enhance employee engagement. SHRM-SIOP Science
of HR Series, 1-22
Fisher, C. D., Schoenfeldt, L. F., & Shaw, J. B., 2006.
Human resource management (6th ed.). Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Gouldner, A. W., 1960. The norm of reciprocity: A
preliminary statement. American Sociological Review,
25, 161-178.
Kottke, J. L., & Sharafinski, C. E., 1988. Measuring
perceived supervisory and organizational support.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48,
1075–1079.
Kreitner, R. & Kinicky, A., 2010. Organization behavior
(9th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Kular, S., Gatenby, M., Rees, C., Soane, E., & Truss, K.,
2008. Employee engagement: A literature review.
Working Paper Series. Kingston Bussiness School, 1-
33.
Markos, S., & Sridevi, M.S., 2010. Employee
engagement: The key to improving performance.
International Journal of Bussiness and Management, 5,
89-96.
Matell, M. S., & Jacoby, J., 1972. Is there an optimal
number of alternatives for likert scale effects of tesing
time and scale properties? Effects of testing time and
scale properties. Journal of Applied Psychology,
56(6), 506-509.
Ram, P., & Prabhakar, G., 2011. The role of employee
engagement in work-related outcomes.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business,
1(3), 47-61.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R., 2002. Perceived
organizational support. A review of the literature.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S., 2001.
Affective commitment to the organization: The
contribution of perceived organizational support.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 825–836.
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A. & Crawford, E. R., 2010. Job
engagement: Antecedents and effects on job
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53,
617-635.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S., 2004. The
drivers of employee engagement. UK: The Institute
for Employment Studies.
Rubel, M. R. B. & Kee, D. M. H., 2013. Perceived support
and employee performance: The mediating role of
employee engagement. Life Science Journal, 10, 2557-
2567.
Saks, A., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of
employee engagement. Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
Shore, L. M., & Shore, T. H., 1995. Perceived
organizational support and organizational justice. In R.
S. Cropanzano & K. M. Kacmar (Eds.),
Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing
the social climate of the workplace (pp. 149–164).
Westport, CT: Quorum.
Schaufeli, W. & Bakker, A., 2004. Utrecht work
engagement scale. Utrecht University : Occupational
Helath Psychology Unit.
Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B., 2004. Job demands, job
resources, and their relationship with burnout and
engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315.
Tsang, K.K., 2012. The use of midpoint on likert scale:
The implications for educational research. Hong Kong
Teacher’s Centre Journal, 11, 121-130.
Perceptions Effect of Organizational Support on Employees Work Engagement
621