International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management

29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1

© 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved

ISSN 2304-0777 www.jitbm.com

THE INFLUENCE OF COMMUNICATION AND MOTIVATION

FACTORS ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN THE GENERATION X
AND Y 1)
HERMIN FATIMAH2), ARYA HADI DHARMAWAN3), EUIS SUNARTI4), M. JOKO AFFANDI4)
Graduate Program of Management and Business, Bogor Agricultural University
Email : herminfatimah@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

The research was conducted at the head office of a bank in Jakarta, Indonesia. The study aims to examine the
influence of communication and motivation on employee engagement in the generation X and Y. This study is also
intended to determine whether there are perception differences between generation X and generation Y in these two
factors. The total respondents were 220 people, including 119 for the sample of generation X and 101 for the sample
of generation Y. Using comparison test (t test) and Structural Equation Modeling, it is noted there are no significant
differences between generation X and generation Y for the factor of communication in general. This is because the
communication atmosphere in the bank in general was considered already good both by the employees, especially
on the openness and trust indicators. However in the sub indicators on participation, there is a significant difference
between generation X and generation Y in which generation Y is lower than generation X. Therefore, the supervisor
should give more chances to generation Y employee in communicating policies relevant to their duties so they can
improve their participation. In addition, there is a significant difference for the factor of motivation, especially
contributed by the intrinsic factor in which generation Y is lower than generation X. To improve the intrinsic
motivation especially for generation Y, the organization has to create a challenging work atmosphere beside the
clarity of work responsibility, career, and performance reward. In both generations, there are significant influence
of communication and motivation on employee engagement. Therefore, the communication atmosphere within the
organization needs to be maintained conducive. In addition, organizations need to constantly create policies that
encourage and motivate employees.

Keywords : communication, employee engagement, motivation, generation X, generation Y

I. INTRODUCTION
It is inevitable that the role of human capital
in an organization is essential. Currently the labor
force in the organization consists of various
generations including generation X and generation Y.
Generation X was born during the year of 1965-1979,
while the generation Y in the year of 1980-2001 [3].
The [22] state that several studies define a generation
as a group which has similar behavior due to the
events of life experienced are similar. Generation is
the average span of birth from parents to descendant.
Children are born in a certain era, and they are
influenced not only by the values and attitudes in the
family, friends and the community such as schools,
----------------------------------------------------------
but also by significant world events, social trends,
and environmental factors that occur in the time.
Raised at the same time and facing similar stimuli,
groups of children tend to develop in accordance to
world events, beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors
[6].
Every generation has a distinct uniqueness
compared to the parents’ generation. The challenge at
this point is that generation gap in the workplace can
create negative impacts such as confusion, hatred,
anger and turnover if it is not identified and
understood [20].

22
 International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management
29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1
© 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved

ISSN 2304-0777 www.jitbm.com

1) This article is part of a research dissertation.

2) Student, Doctoral Program of Management and Business, Bogor Agricultural University.
3) Head of Supervisor Team, Doctoral Program of Management and Business, Bogor Agricultural University.
4) Member of Supervisor Team, Doctoral Program of Management and Business, Bogor Agricultural University.

The engagement of an employee to the understands how to lead a multi-generation

organization is strongly influenced by the dimensions
of life that affect the job satisfaction of the
employee which can bring their mind and physic
fully connected to the workplace. In order to know
what dimensions are encouraging employees to be
engaged to the organization, an organization is
required to figure out the dimensions that make an
employee being engaged to or extricated from the
organization. Engagement drivers are dimensions that
increase the perception of a person to be bound to the
organization, while engagement threats are
dimensions that decrease a person's sense of
attachment to the organization [11].
Values and perspectives of a generation
often conflicts with the values and perspectives of
other generations. Recognizing and addressing the
cause of the conflict will provide benefits to the
organization. The sooner the management
environment, the more succeed the organization [6].
Communication and motivation factors are
important variables that affect the engagement of an
employee in an organization. To test this, research
needs to be done, especially on generation X and Y
employees. The sampling of generation X and
generation Y is considered due to the generation X
as the majority of employees in the bank, while
generation Y is currently the youngest generation
who have entered the age of labor force. In the next
few years, however, the generation Y will occupy
managerial positions and its presence is important in
the organization. Research on employee engagement
has attracted many previous researchers. However,
this study was conducted at the bank, which has
specific duties and functions characteristics, so it is
expected to provide more understanding and enrich
the previous research findings on the factors that
influence generation-based employee engagement.

II. THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND
In essence, communication is the process of
delivering information from one party including
individuals, groups or organizations as a sender, to
other parties as the recipients to understand and
create the opportunity to give feedback to the sender.
Communication acts to control the behavior of
members of the organization in several ways.
Organizations have hierarchy of authority and formal
guidelines that must be followed by the workers.
When a worker is required to communicate
complaining on the immediate supervisor related to
the work, he has to follow the description of the task,
or is subject to the policy of the organization. In this
case, communication works as a control function
[36].
According to [5], communication
atmosphere consists of factors: (1) participation in
decision making. Participation in the decision-
making process brings awareness that communication
to the superior is heard. The circumstance shows the
freedom of employees to communicate vertically. (2)
Disclosure, in conjunction with saying and also
listening to the messages. (3) Trust. The confidence
and credibility of the sources of the role of
communication indicates that the message and the
communication are trusted to keep the confidential
information. Furthermore, [15] states that the impact
of a communications strategy produces an
improvement in the person and the environment of
organization; thus, it could be argued that it confirms
employee engagement.
According to [32] the motivation theories
can be grouped into two categories. First, satisfaction
theory; it focuses on the factors in the person which
strengthens, directs, supports, and stops the behavior.
Secondly, process theory; it describes and analyzes
how the behavior is reinforced, directed, supported,
and stopped. One of the satisfaction theories is the
Two Factor Theory (Hezberg). Hezberg developed
Two Factor Theory of Motivation: factors that make
people feel satisfied and that make people dissatisfied
(extrinsic and intrinsic), which is also known as the

23
 International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management
29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1
© 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
Motivation Hygiene Theory. According to Herzberg,
extrinsic conditions are job circumstances and other
hygienic conditions which lead to the sense of
dissatisfaction among the employees if these
conditions are not available. Conversely, if the
circumstances and hygienic conditions work quite
well, these can create employee satisfaction. These
factors include wages, job security, working and
hygienic conditions, status, company procedures,
quality of technical supervision, and quality of
interpersonal relationships among peers, both with
superiors and subordinates. Meanwhile, a series of
intrinsic conditions, if available in the workplace will
strengthen the level of motivation, which in turn
results in better job achievement. The conditions
include the achievement, recognition, responsibility,
advancement, the work itself, and possibility of
growth. This intrinsic motivation may lead to
employee engagement [13]. They indicate that how
meaningful individuals find their jobs can influence
their intrinsic motivation and employee engagement
levels.
In today's multigenerational work
environment, character, attitudes, and values of the
younger workforce are constantly changing. This
generation is significantly different to the previous
generation (generation X) which is more tolerant,
enjoys social relationships, and respects more to the
senior colleagues. General expectations of younger
employees tend to be higher salary, better awards,
immediate feedback, and a faster career growth [23].
Employee engagement is as much emotional
as rational [12]. The [16] states that the engagement
to the organization is the main attributes of the
company's success in dealing with the problem of
human resources or employees. The higher the
employee engagement to the organization is, the
better his/her performance will be; thus, the better the
performance of the company. The [33] state that
employee engagement is the level of employee
commitment and involvement to the organization and
its values. Employees who have an attachment to the
organization are aware of the organization's business
conditions, and with other fellow employees perform
for organization advancement. Employees who are
engaged to the organization will feel fully involved
and enthusiastic in their work.
In practical, Employee engagement can be
successful if every employee is treated with respect
and dignity; if empowered to take decision in his/her
work area; if not punished for making mistake but to
24
www.jitbm.com
be taken as new learnings; if encouragement, support
and resources is given to the employee [2].
In line with those authors, [21] state that
employee engagement is showing commitment,
involvement with enthusiasm at workplace by the
employees towards the reach of organizational goals.
Therefore, employee engagement will drive
the employee performance ([4]; [8]; [18]) and then
organization performance ([7]; [17]).
Meanwhile, related to the factors contributed
to employee engagement, [25] say dimensions
contained in the work engagement, namely (1) Vigor,
the outpouring of energy and mental strength during
the work, the courage to exert every effort in
completing a job, and work diligently in the face of
adversity, also the willingness to invest any effort in
a job, and persisted in spite of difficulties; (2)
Dedication, feel very strongly involved in a job and
experience a sense of significance, enthusiasm, pride,
inspiration and challenge. (3) Absorption, in the
work, employee is always fully and serious
concentrated to a job, working time felt fleeting, and
find difficulty in separating themselves with work.
We use this approach in the paper, although there are
several research related to the factors contributed to
employee engagement.
The research of [4] find that workplace
wellbeing, compensation program, team and co-
worker relationship, leadership, working
environment, policies and procedures, training and
career development were predictors of employee
engagement, however, the variables that had major
impact were working environment and team and co-
worker relationship. Meanwhile, [10] find procedural
justice is higher, employee moral identity centrality
plays a less significant role in employee engagement;
whilst when procedural justice is lower, the effect of
moral identity centrality on employee engagement is
stronger.
The research of [24] confirm the important
role of psychological meaningfulness and
psychological availability as mediators between
work-role fit, job enrichment, resources and co-
worker relations on the one hand, and employee
engagement on the other. Meanwhile, [37] mention
that supports team was the strongest predictor of
engagement. The [29] find that collaboration
mediates the relationship between leadership styles
and employee engagement. Further, [28] also find
that relationship development and attachment to co-
 International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management
29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1
© 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
workers, workplace climate and opportunities for
learning shape the employee’s engagement.
However, organization may lead to failure if
the engagement not a core value, lack support from
top leadership, lack of support from front-line
managers or supervisors, failure to act on
engagement survey result, rushing to solutions
without collecting and analyzing data, imprecisely
analyzing survey result, poor communication, failure
to regularly survey employees, inability to link
III. RESEARCH METHOD
Time and Location of the Research
Data retrieval was conducted from December 2014 to
January 2015. The study was conducted at the head
office bank in Jakarta, Indonesia.
Data Collection
Data were collected through a questionnaire using a
Semantic Deferential scale of measurement to 220
sample of respondents. Respondents from generation
X were 119 people, consisting of 59 men and 60
women. Meanwhile, the generation Y respondents
were 101 people (44 men and 57 women). This study
used a stratified random sampling.
Research Variables
Variables consisted of exogenous variables, namely:
(1) Communication, with indicators of
participation, openness, trust. Communication
is the process of delivering and receiving news
or information from one person to another
[34]. The statements in the questionnaire were
adapted from [35] with several adjustments.
(2) Motivation, with extrinsic indicators of sense
of security in work, relationships with
colleagues, relations with superiors, relations
with subordinates, working conditions, and
intrinsic indicators of supervisor rewards on
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Comparison test of communication and
motivation variables between generation X and Y
was done through mean score analysis which showed
similarities and differences in the level of employee
perceptions of generations X and Y on both variables
at the level of 5%, as presented in Table 1.
25
www.jitbm.com
improved engagement with organizational outcomes
[14]. Thus, survey is an important tool to create an
engaged environment. By carrying out surveys and
bearing in mind the fundamental principles of
engagement as well as understanding the employee
lifecycle, managers in organizations can discover
ways to manage inevitable changes while keeping
employees engaged [19].
work performance, clarity of responsibility in
carrying out the work, the clarity of career,
challenging job. Motivation is a factor that
drives a person to do a particular activity [31].
The statements in the questionnaire were
adapted from the Two Factor Theory of
Hezberg: factors that make people feel
satisfied and that make them dissatisfied
(extrinsic and intrinsic) with several adjusted
statements in the questionnaire.
Endogenous variable is the employee engagement,
with indicators of vigor, dedication, and absorption.
Employee engagement is a positive motivational
conditions associated with the work that is
characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption.
The statements in the questionnaire were adapted
Shortened version (Utrecht Work Engagement Scale–
9 [UWES-9 ]) from [26].
Processing and Data Analysis
Hypothesis testing was conducted by using Structural
Equation Modeling (SEM) method using Lisrel, and
comparison test (t test) was carried out by using
SPSS.
Based on data in Table 1, there is no
difference in the perception of the variable
communication between generations X and Y. This is
because the communication atmosphere in the bank
in general was considered already good both by the
employees, especially on the openness and trust
indicators. Employees have gained ease of obtaining
information through an internal website access and
email regularly informing about the policy or the
ongoing transformation process. Good
 International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management
29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1
© 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved

ISSN 2304-0777 www.jitbm.com

communication is also reflected in the mutual trust
between employer-employee in carrying out the
work. However, in the sub indicators of participation
there is a significant difference of perception between
generations X and Y, where the mean value of
generation X is higher than the generation Y.
As for the motivation variable, there is a
difference of perception between generations X and
Y. The difference is due to the intrinsic indicator. In
this study, the intrinsic indicators are reflected in the
statement of supervisor on work performance, clarity
of responsibility in carrying out the work, career
clarity, and challenging work, in which the mean
value of the generation Y is lower than the generation
X. This is in line with the general characteristics of
generation Y who prefer challenging job and the
clarity in carrying out the work/career. This results
are in line with the [13] that indicate that older
workers (generation X) experience more engagement
with their work whether or not intrinsic motivation is
present on the job, while the downfall is that
engagement levels of current and emerging younger
employees may be at risk based on how intrinsically
motivating they find their jobs.

Table 1 . Comparative Analysis of Communication and Motivation Variables on Generation X and Generation Y

Variable Mean T-count Prob Description

X Gen Y Gen
Communication 4.084 3,936 1.973 0.051 Not significant
- Participation 4.105 3.931 2.001 0.047 Significant
- Openness 4.021 3.896 1.368 0.173 Not significant
- Trust 4.126 3.980 1.668 0,097 Not significant
Motivation 3.958 3,796 2.121 0.035 Significant
- Extrinsic 4.170 4,079 1.201 0.231 Not significant
- Intrinsic 3.746 3,512 2.459 0.015 Significant

This intrinsic motivation also related to the
value of work they have. The [30] find the
generations differ significantly in the conception of
the life project, dimensions of professional ethics,
authority, independence and freedom in decision-
making. Thus, [27] also find that employees from
different generational cohorts differ in their work
values.
These result is in contrast with [1] that
indicates that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
factors have similar importance for bank employees.
These might be related to organizational values,
organizational culture, procedures or management
styles of the bank. Although [30] predict several
intrinsic values that differ generation X and
generation Y, they find that practically no-one
generation values career growth within the company.
Meanwhile, to test the validity and
reliability of the instrument, we used confirmatory
factor analysis by looking at the value of the
standardized loading factor of each item, and further
used the construct reliability (CR) and variance
extracted (VE). If the t-count value is greater than t
table (1.96), it was considered to be valid. Then, if
CR greater than or equal to 0.7, and the VE greater
than or equal to 0.5, it was considered to be reliable.
Based on validity and reliability test, all indicators
are valid to measure the construct, given the value of
t- count is greater than t-table (1.96). Communication
and Motivation variables have a value of Construct
Reliability (CR) which is greater than 0.7 and their
Variance Extracted (VE) is greater than 0.5 means
reliable.
In addition, the results of validity test of
SEM model are in Table 2.

26
 International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management
29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1
© 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved

ISSN 2304-0777 www.jitbm.com

Table 2. Result of Validity Test of SEM model

Variable Generation X Generation Y

Loading(λ) T-Statistic Description Loading(λ) T-Statistic Description
Participation 0.85 11.61 Valid 0.68 8.89 Valid
Communication Openness 0.74 10.98 Valid 0.66 8.96 Valid
Trust 0.72 10.96 Valid 0.94 9.76 Valid
Extrinsic 0.87 9.66 Valid 0.84 9.42 Valid
Motivation
Intrinsic 0.75 9.43 Valid 0.82 8.82 Valid
Vigor 0.84 8.80 Valid 0.89 9.12 Valid
Employee
Dedicaton 0.90 8.25 Valid 0.84 7.28 Valid
Engagement
Absorption 0.87 8.26 Valid 0.83 7.84 Valid
Note : if t-statistic > t table (1.96) then valid and significant

Based on the Table 2, the value of the loading factor
(λ) of the relationship between the variables of
communication, motivation, and employee
engagement with all indicators of each is greater than
0.5, with the value of the t-statistic greater than 1.96
at significance level of 0.05. Thus, it can say that the
value is valid to measure each construct. The results
of SEM models of Goodness-of-Fit criteria are
described in Table 3. Based on Table 3, all indicators
show that the SEM model is fit or good because all
result are in the range of cut off value.

Table 3. Results of SEM models of Goodness-of-Fit criteria

Generation X Generation Y
Goodness-of-Fit Cut-off-
Cut-off-Value Result Description Result Description
Value
Significance Probability(P-
0.05 0.95 Good Fit 0.05 0.95 Good Fit
value)
RMR(Root Mean Square
0.05 0.01 Good Fit 0.05 0.03 Good Fit
Residual)
RMSEA(Root Mean square
0.08 0.00 Good Fit 0.08 0.00 Good Fit
Error of Approximation)
GFI(Goodness of Fit) 0.90 1.00 Good Fit 0.90 1.00 Good Fit
AGFI(Adjusted Goodness of 1.00 0,99
0.90 Good Fit 0.90 Good Fit
Fit Index)
CFI (Comparative Fit Index) 0.90 1.00 Good Fit 0.90 1.00 Good Fit

27
 International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management
29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1
© 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved
ISSN 2304-0777
After testing the feasibility of the model,
then the subsequent analysis is to examine the
research hypothesis. If t-count is smaller than t-table
(1.96), then the hypothesis is rejected, otherwise if t-
count is greater than t-table (1.96), the hypothesis is
accepted.
Based on data processing, for Generation X,
the t-count for the influence of communication to
employee engagement is 10.94 while for motivation
is 9.53. Meanwhile, for Generation Y, the t-count for
communication is 8.07, while motivation is 8,38.
Therefore, it is proved that communication and
motivational effect on employee engagement both in
generation X and generation Y.
V. CONCLUSION
Conclusion
1. There are no significant differences between
generation X and Y for the factor of
communication in general. However in the sub
indicators on participation, there is a significant
difference between generation X and generation
Y in which generation Y is lower than generation
X. In addition, there is significant difference for
the factor of motivation, especially contributed
by the intrinsic factor in which generation Y is
lower than generation X.
2. Communication and motivation significantly
influence the employee engagement both in
generation X and generation Y.
Recommendation
1. The communication atmosphere within the
organization needs to be maintained conducive,
as proven effect on employee engagement. The
supervisor should give more chances to
generation Y employee in communicating
REFERENCES
[1]. Acar AB. (2014). Do Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Motivation Factors Differ for Generation X and
Generation Y?. International Journal of Business
and Social Science Vol. 5. No. 5 : 12-20.
[2]. Ali SS. (2013). A Study on Employee Engagement
in Cochin International Airport Limited. A
Management Journal. Vol. 4. No. 1: 24-47.
[3]. Anantatmula VS, Shrivastav B. (2012). Evolution
of Project Teams for Generation Y Workforce.
28
www.jitbm.com
This finding is in line with [15] mentioning
that communication confirms employee engagement
and [13] arguing that intrinsic motivation may lead to
employee engagement. Thus, [9] argues that all
generations want meaningful work.
However, this finding is in contrast to [21]
that estimate that the level of engagement was
highest among the age group of 20 to 30 years
(generation Y) and lowest among the age group of
more than 50 years (generation X).
policies relevant to their duties so they can
improve their participation.
2. Organizations need to constantly create policies
that encourage and motivate employees, such as
policies regarding their clarity of career for
employees and objective reward for high job
performance.
3. To improve the intrinsic motivation especially
for generation Y, the organization has to create a
challenging work atmosphere beside the clarity
of work responsibility, career, and performance
reward.
4. The limitation of this study is that it was
conducted at a bank that has characteristic at
specific task. Further research can be done in
other organizations by adding a variety of
variables such as the relation of employee
engagement and loyalty and performance, so as
to enrich the understanding of generations X and
Y in various organizations.
International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business. Vol 5. No.1 : 9-26.
[4]. Anitha J. (2014). Determinants of Employee
Engagement and Their Impact on Employee
Performance. International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management. Vol 63. No. 3 :
308-323
 International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management
29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1
© 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved

ISSN 2304-0777 www.jitbm.com

[5]. Arni M. (2014) Komunikasi Organisasi. Bumi [20]. Quinn S. (2010). Generational Challenges In The
Aksara, Jakarta : 85. Workplace. Bissett School of Business & bookboon.com
[6]. Cahill TF, Sedrak M.. (2012). Leading a Multigenerational ISBN 978-87-7681-682-7.
Workforce : Strategies for Attracting and Retaining [21]. Alamelu, R, V Badrinath, A Birundha. (2014). Employee
Millennials. Frontiers of Health Services Management : 3- Engagement Practices in Southern Railways (Madurai) –
15. Strategic Approach. Advances in Management. Vol. 7.
[7]. Carter R. (2010). Increasing Employee Engagement No.7 : 36 -40.
and Performance : Drama-Based-Interventions. [22]. Rajput N, Marwah P, Balli R, Gupta M. (2013).
Training and Development in Australia : 14-17. Managing Multigenerational Workforce Challenge
[8]. Fachrunnisa O, Adhiatma A, Mutamimah. (2014). for Millennium Managers. International Journal of
The Role of Workplace Spirituality and Employee Marketing and Technology. Vol 3. No.2 : 132-149.
Engagement to Enhance Job Satisfaction and [23]. Ramesh G, Vasuki K. (2013). Recognizing, Rewarding and
Performance. International Journal of Retaining Gen-Y Work Force for Creating High
Organizational Innovation. Vol. 7. No. 1 : 15-35. Performing Organizations. Journal of Commerce &
[9]. Fairlie P. (2011). All Generations Want Meaningful Management Thought IV - 3 ISSN 0975-623X(print)0976-
Work. Canadian HR Reporter : 17. 478X(online : 562-573.
[10]. He H, Zhu W, Zheng X (2014). Procedural Justice [24]. Rothmann S, Welsh C. (2013). Employee
and Employee Engagement: Roles of Engagement: The Role of Psychological
Organizational Identification and Moral Identity Conditions. Management Dynamics. Volume 22
Centrality. Journal of Business Ethics. Vol. 122 : No 1: 14-25.
681-695 [25]. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-Romá, V,
[11]. Jalal OM. (2012). Mengenal Siapa Itu Generasi Y? Bakker AB. (2002). The Measurement of
Human Capital Magazine,: 30-34. Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample
[12]. Keohane K. (2010). Defining Employee Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach. Journal of
Engagement With The Employee in Mind. Happiness Studies, 3, 71 – 92.
Communication World. : 12. [26]. Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. (2006).
[13]. Kordbacheh N, Shultz KS, Olson DA. (2014). The Measurement of Work Engagement With A
Engaging Mid and Late Career Employees: The Short Questionnaire A Cross-National Study.
Relationship Between Age and Employee Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol.
Engagement, Intrinsic Motivation, and 66. No.4 : 701-716
Meaningfulness. Journal of Organizational [27]. Seipert K, T Baghurst T. (2014). Contrasting Work
Psychology. Vol. 14. No. 1. : 11-25 Values of Baby Boomers and Generation X Rural
[14]. Lavigna B. (2015). Why Employee Engagement Public Principals. Public Administration Quarterly.
Matters and Why Engagement Efforts Fail. Vol. 38. No. 3 : 347-370
Government Finance Review : 32-37. [28]. Shuck MB, Rocco TS, Albornoz CA. (2011).
[15]. Lucey JJ. (2009). The Impact of A Communications Exploring Employee Engagement from The
Strategy and Five Step Survey Process on The Employee Perspective: Implications for HRD.
Improvement of Employee Engagement. Journal of European Industrial Training. Vol. 35
Management Services. Vol. 53. No. 2 : 9-15. No. 4 : 300-325
[16]. Mangkuprawira TS. (2011). Manajemen Sumber Daya [29]. Soieb AZM, Othman J, D’silva JL. (2015).
Manusia Strategik (Edisi Kedua). Ghalia Indonesia, Bogor : Mediating Influence of Collaboration on The
247. Relationship Between Leadership Style and
[17]. Markos S, Sridevi MS. (2010). Employee Employee Engagement among Generation Y
Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance. Officials in Malaysian Public Sector. Journal of
International Journal of Business and Management. Applied Sciences : 1-25
Vol. 5. No. 12 : 89-96. [30]. Susaeta, L, JR Pin, S Idrovo, A Espejo, M Belizon.
[18]. Medlin B, Green K.,Jr. (2008). The Relationship (2013). “Generation or culture?: Work attitude
among Goal Setting, Optimism, and Engagement: drivers: an analysis in Latin America and Iberian
The Impact on Employee Performance. countries”. Cross Cultural Management. Vol. 20.
Proceedings of the Academy of Organizational No. 3. Pp. 321-360
Culture, Communications and Conflict, 13(1) [31]. Sutrisno E. (2014). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia.:
Tunica : 51-56. Kencana Prenada Media Group, Jakarta : 109.
[19]. Pritchard K. (2008). Employee Engagement in The [32]. Tampubolon MP. (2012). Perilaku Keorganisasian
UK: Meeting The Challenge inThe Public Sector. (Organization Behavior) Perspektif Organisasi Bisnis.
Development and Learning in Organizations. Vol. Ghalia Indonesia, Bogor : 89-93.
22. No. 6 : 15-17. [33]. Thiagarajan B, Renugadevi V. (2011). Employee
Engagement Practices in Indian BPO Industries – An

29
 International Journal of Information Technology and Business Management
29th June 2015. Vol.38 No.1
© 2012-2015 JITBM & ARF. All rights reserved

ISSN 2304-0777 www.jitbm.com

Empirical Investigation. Interdisciplinary Journal of

Contemporary Research In Business, Vol . 2. No. 10 : 134-
141.
[34]. Thoha M. (2010). Perilaku Organisasi Konsep Dasar dan
Aplikasinya. Rajawali Pers, Jakarta : 167.
[35]. Wardhani AA. (2009). Iklim Komunikasi
Organisasi dan Disiplin Kerja (Studi Tentang
Hubungan Iklim Komunikasi Organisasi dan
Disiplin Kerja di Lingkungan Badan Kepegawaian
Daerah Kota Surakarta). Jurusan Ilmu Komunikasi
Fakultas Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik Universitas Sebelas
Maret, Surakarta : 127-129.
[36]. Wibowo. (2013). Perilaku Dalam Organisasi. PT. Rajawali
Press, Jakarta : 242.
[37]. Xu Jessica, Thomas HC. How Can Leaders Achieve
High Employee Engagement?. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal. Vol. 32 No. 4 :
399-416

30