Who Cares about CSR? Investigating Employee’s Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: The Moderating Role of Perceived Supervisor Support

全文

(1)Who Cares about CSR? Investigating Employee’s Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement: The Moderating Role of Perceived Supervisor Support. by Han-Yu Fan. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: Yi-Chun Lin, Ph. D.. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan August 2017.

(2) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT To me, CSR is not only a research topic but also a meaningful issue and an initiative that I hope to practice in my future career life. No matter how stressful the thesis-writing process was, I already survived and passed all the challenges. During this period of time, I obtained the assistances from a lot of people. First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to my advisor Dr. Lin who bear my anxiety and uneasy emotion all the time, but still hold optimistic and open-minded attitude to get along with me. Being inspired by Dr. Lin, I tried not to mind the result too much, but focus more attention on the process. Besides, thanks Dr. Lin for spending a lot of extra time to have meetings with me and correct my grammar errors patiently. Secondly, I also wanted to present my sincere appreciation to my committees, Dr. Yeh and Dr. Chang, both of them provided multiple insightful suggestions to me in many aspects which not only stimulated me to generate a better research outcome but also helped me to have clearer idea toward my study. On the other hand, I want to devote my highest appreciation to my families and the lovely friends around me included Anna Lai, Delsie Ku, Shang-lin Hu, Tzu-ping Yang, Owen Ku, Phil Lin, Rick Wu, Gilbert Yang, Peggy Chen, Julie Wu and Amelia Lee. These are the people who taught me the tips to use statistical software, provided feedbacks to me, helped me to distribute questionnaires, corrected my APA format and acted as recorders during my proposal and defense meeting. By displaying their names here, I aimed to memorize their contribution. Finally, I remained my special thanks to Yi-tsung Lo. Thanks him for acting as my strongest support to accompany with me, encourage me and become my best mentor within these two years..

(3) ABSTRACT The purpose of this paper was to explore the impact of employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) on employee engagement as well as the moderating effect of perceived supervisor support. Data were collected by distributing both paper-based and online questionnaires. The final sample involved 427 full-time employees working in the Taiwan large corporations with annual revenue more than NT$10 billion. A hierarchical regression analysis was applied to examine the results of the relationships. The result supported the idea that employee’s perception of CSR was a significant antecedent of employee engagement in terms of the dimensions of philanthropic, ethical and environmental CSR activities. While, the further result showed that among the three dimensions of employee’s perception of CSR, perceived supervisor support merely have significant and positive moderating effect on the relationship between employee’s perception of ethical CSR and employee engagement. The findings can help human resource practitioners and higher level managers understand that CSR can be taken as a strategy to increase employee engagement. As for the implication of this study, it indicated that some of the CSR related trainings and internal managerial mechanisms are necessary to be built for ensuring supervisors understand organizations’ CSR initiatives and are willing to deliver them actively to employees based on different individuals’ needs. Moreover, in order to get more strategic benefits from CSR implementation, the embeddedness of CSR values into the daily working environment was also mentioned in the end of this study.. Keywords: employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility, employee engagement, perceived supervisor support I.

(4) TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... I TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. IV LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................. V CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION......................................................................... 1 Background of the Study ................................................................................................... 1 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. 4 Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... 5 Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 6 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................... 7 Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................ 7. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................. 9 Corporate Social Responsibility ........................................................................................ 9 Employee’s Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility ............................................ 13 Employee Engagement .................................................................................................... 14 Employee’s Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement ………………………………………………………………………………………...17 Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS) ............................................................................... 19 The Moderating Role of Perceived Supervisor Support .................................................. 21. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ...................................................................23 Research Framework ....................................................................................................... 23 II.

(5) Research Hypotheses ....................................................................................................... 24 Research Design............................................................................................................... 24 Research Procedure .......................................................................................................... 25 Sample.............................................................................................................................. 27 Data Collection ................................................................................................................ 28 Questionnaire Design ....................................................................................................... 28 Measurement .................................................................................................................... 29 Control Variables ............................................................................................................. 33 Method of Data Analysis ................................................................................................. 34 Validity and Reliability .................................................................................................... 38 Sample Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................... 47. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION .............................................50 Pearson’s Correlation Analysis ........................................................................................ 50 Hierarchical Regression Analysis .................................................................................... 52 Summary of Analyses Results ......................................................................................... 58. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTION....................................60 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 60 Research Implications ...................................................................................................... 62 Practical Implications....................................................................................................... 64 Research Limitations ....................................................................................................... 68 Future Research Suggestions ........................................................................................... 68. REFERENCES....................................................................................................70 III.

(6) LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1.. Employee’s Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility Scale……..…….....30. Table 3.2.. Employee Engagement Scale………………..……………………………….…32. Table 3.3.. Perceived Supervisor Support Scale....………………….…………….….…..…33. Table 3.4.. Criteria of Suggested Model Fit………………..…………………………….…36. Table 3.5.. Reliability (n=45)....…………………...…………………………...…….…..…38. Table 3.6.. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Employee’s Perception of CSR (n=427)….....39. Table 3.7.. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Employee Engagement (n=427)....………..…41. Table 3.8.. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Perceived Supervisor Support (n=427)…...…43. Table 3.9.. Model Fit Indexes (n=427)....………………...………..……….…………….…45. Table 3.10.. Descriptive Statistics on Sample Characteristics (n=427)………………….…47. Table 4.1.. Mean, Standard Deviations, Correlations and Reliability (n=427)...………....…51. Table 4.2.. Result of Regression Analyses for Employees’ Perception of CSR as an Independent Variable (n=427) ……………………….……..…….……….…...53. Table 4.3.. Result of Regression Analyses for Moderating Effect of Perceived Supervisor Support (n=427)...…………………………….….………………...…….....…..54. Table 4.4.. Result of Regression Analyses for Moderating Effect of Perceived Supervisor Support (n=427)...…………………………….………..........................…..…...55. Table 4.5.. Hypothesis Testing Results Summary...……………………………….……..…59. IV.

(7) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1.. Research framework…………………………………………………..….……23. Figure 3.2.. Research procedure………………………………………………...…..………26. Figure 3.3.. Skewness and kurtosis model of employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility……………………………………………………………..……40. Figure 3.4.. Measurement model of employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility……………………………………………………………….….40. Figure 3.5.. Measurement model of employee engagement………………………..………42. Figure 3.6.. Measurement model of perceived supervisor support…………………………43. Figure 3.7.. Measurement model of three-factor model………………………….…………46. Figure 4.1.. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of perceived supervisor support on employee’s perception of philanthropic CSR and employee engagement.....…57. Figure 4.2.. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of perceived supervisor support on employee’s perception of ethical CSR and employee engagement.....……...…57. Figure 4.3.. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of perceived supervisor support on employee’s perception of environmental CSR and employee engagement...…58. V.

(8) CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. This chapter aims to present an overview of the background, statement of the problem, objectives and significance of this study. Besides, definition of the key terms is demonstrated in the end as well.. Background of the Study Due to the rapid development of globalization, the strict supervision of government and the widespread coverage of Internet and media, today’s business organizations encounter a number of challenges (Marquis, Thomason, & Tydlaska, 2014). For example, the change of customers’ purchase habits and preferences, the competition from all over the world, the call for environmental sustainability, and the rights for employees to have work-life balance. All of these issues can be handled when organizations fulfill their corporate social responsibility (CSR) completely. Hence, CSR related initiatives have grown rapidly in the global business context in these few decades, as organizations are now taking it as a strategy to satisfy different stakeholders’ needs (Bučiūnienė & Kazlauskaitė, 2012). A survey conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 2002 pointed out that 70 percent of global CEOs regarded CSR as one of the big factors for firms’ profitability (Vogel, 2005). This statistic reflects that CSR has evolved as a key role in enterprises’ overall operation and core strategy which lead to the success (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Take Taiwan as an example, the development of CSR receives more and more attentions by profit and non-profit organizations and government. Especially, the high risk of the food and industrial safety are the serious issues worried by most of Taiwanese in recent years (Huang & Kung, 2010). Thus, according to the press release announced by Taiwan Stock Exchange (TWSE, 2015) and Financial 1.

(9) Supervisory Commission (FSC, 2014), companies such as chemical and financial industries, big corporations with paid-in capital more than NT$10 billion, and food processing firms are mandatory required to compile CSR reports, which can be seen as a tool to link corporations with their stakeholders whom will get more clear information about whether business organizations practice their social responsibilities to the best. CSR encompasses business ethics and indicates that business organizations should treat their stakeholders with ethical and responsible approaches (Hopkins, 2003). As for employees’ perception of CSR, it refers to the extent that employees perceived organizations support the initiatives related to social issues (Lee, Park, & Lee, 2013). With the trend that CSR becomes more and more recognized, it is unfortunate that employees’ perceptions and thinking toward CSR are often ignored, while employees are one of the most prominent stakeholders to organizations who have strong legitimacy and power to influence organizations’ performance (Greenwood, 2007). Hence, if companies aim to execute CSR strategically, then the big challenge for organizations is to integrate CSR with internal operations and value rather than view it as a peripheral project merely (Hassan, 2007). In this sense, exploring employees’ perceptions of CSR is an important indicator to know whether organizations fulfill their CSR thoroughly. Lee et al. (2013) found that employees’ perceptions of CSR can stimulate employees’ attitudinal, emotional, and behavioral responses and all of these responses are crucial to employee engagement. Employee engagement refers to one’s emotional, physical, and cognitive status leading directly to corporations’ ideal performance (Shuck & Wollard, 2010). Serving as a critical element to organizations’ success and competitive advantage as claimed by Macey, Schneider, Barbera, and Young (2009),. 2.

(10) employee engagement is one of the few constructs which captured a great amount of concern of both practitioners and scholars in this recent decade (Saks & Gruman, 2014). The related issues have been reported time to time. For example, Gallup (2016a) found that among 230,000 employees in 142 countries, there were merely 13% of them engaging in their work. Specifically, a lower productivity resulted from a large number of disengaged employees leads the USA economy loses approximately 500 billion dollars per year. Therefore, employee engagement is an issue that organizations cannot neglect owing to the reason that it is an important predictor for productivity, motivation, job satisfaction, and intention to leave (Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2003; Bakker, Schaufeli, Leiter, & Taris, 2008). It is proposed that embedding CSR into employees’ job and incorporated it into firms’ daily operation are the effective ways for organizations to retain employees, as when employees’ perceive meaningfulness in their work, they tend to increase engagement toward the works and have fewer tendencies to leave organizations (Glavas & Piderit, 2009). While supervisors play important roles to fulfill this task due to one of their key missions is to incorporate organizations’ CSR value into different subordinates’ job packages including job duties, salary and welfare benefits based on the individual needs (Bhattacharya, Sen, & Korschun, 2008). Alfes, Truss, Sone, and Gatenby (2013) also mentioned that in contrast to the extensive organization, supervisors are the ones having closer relationship and direct interaction with subordinates. They can offer more individualized treatment to inferiors. Thus, supervisors act as critical roles to provide humanized support and communicate organizations’ CSR policies thoroughly to the lower level employees for stimulating the greater employee understanding of organizations’ CSR practice (Slack, Corlett, & Morris, 2015). Perceived supervisor support (PSS) is widely characterized. 3.

(11) as the extent that employees perceived their achievements and welfare valued by supervisors (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). Shanock and Eisenberger (2006) found that when subordinates perceive support from their supervisors, they will increase their in-role and extra-role performance as reciprocation based on social exchange theory. Therefore, perceived supervisor support will strengthen the connection between employees’ perception of CSR and employee engagement.. Problem Statement After reviewing the literature related to employees’ perception of CSR, employee engagement and PSS, the researcher found that there are some gaps to be filled. Therefore, this study aims to enlarge the current literature in the following aspects. First, Aguinis and Glavas (2012) mentioned that there is a knowledge gap existing in the literature linking CSR to micro OB, I-O psychology, and HRM. Since most of the studies in CSR are mainly concentrated on either organizational level or institutional level which stresses on the influence on external stakeholders or financial performance (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). While CSR idea is described as connecting organizations’ macro levels with micro levels (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007; Lindgreen & Swaen, 2010). This study developed CSR research based on the individual level of analysis. In fact, applying the individual level of measurements can help us to better understand the degree of the embeddedness of CSR within organizations (Glavas & Kelley, 2014). Second, the future research direction given by Glavas and Godwin (2013) stated that with CSR receiving greater concerns nowadays, it is worth to understand the impact of CSR on employees in more aspects such as employees’ performance and work behaviors. While Lee et al. (2013) indicated that the extant CSR studies are. 4.

(12) primary focused on customer perception instead of employees’ perspective. Prior studies in this realm related to employees are mainly focused on organizational citizenship behaviors (Jones, 2010; Rupp, Shao, Thornton, & Skarlicki, 2013) and job performance (Vlachos, Panagopoulos, & Rapp, 2014), while the research specifically talked about the relationship between employees’ perception of CSR and employee engagement are very scant. On the other hand, Gallup an international performance-management consulting corporation conducted a survey on March 2016 indicated that in America, there were only around 34% workforce engaged in their works (Gallup, 2016b). In fact, it was the highest percentage that Gallup had ever collected since it started tracking the degree of employee engagement of the employees in U.S. in 2011. The disengaged situation among the workforce has been described as an “engagement gap” which not only happens in America today but also exists in other areas around the world for a long time (Saks & Gruman, 2014). Therefore, it desperately needs more research to discuss the approaches to increase the degree of employee engagement. In light of this point, the present study focused on CSR to see whether it would cause any impact on employee engagement.. Purpose of the Study Today, CSR has been evolved as a critical issue that organizations can not overlook. With more and more organizations in Taiwan are now endeavoring to practice CSR initiatives, and owing to the reason that employees are one of the most prominent stakeholders in organizations (Slack et al., 2015), thus it is worth to take employees’ perception of CSR as an important indicator to know whether organizations’ CSR implementation do really have any substantial effects internally.. 5.

(13) Instead of implementing CSR for symbolic purpose only, organizations can get more advantages by executing it strategically. If employees who perceive higher degree of CSR presented to have higher degree of employee engagement, and perceived supervisor support did serve as a moderator in this relationship, then the main objectives of this study aimed to push CSR become a more strategic role and emphasized on the positive impact that CSR may cause to employees as well as the importance to select right supervisors who can be the representatives of organizations and are willing to support inferiors. Thus, the purpose of this paper was to explore the impact of employee’s perception of CSR on employee engagement as well as the moderating effect of perceived supervisor support on this relationship.. Research Questions According to the points of view mentioned in this section, this study proposed the following questions: 1. Do employees who perceive higher degree of philanthropic CSR activities have higher degree of employee engagement? 2. Do employees who perceive higher degree of ethical CSR activities have higher degree of employee engagement? 3. Do employees who perceive higher degree of environmental CSR activities have higher degree of employee engagement? 4. Does perceived supervisor support moderate the relationship between employee’s perception of philanthropic CSR activities and employee engagement? 5. Does perceived supervisor support moderate the relationship between employee’s perception of ethical CSR activities and employee engagement? 6. Does perceived supervisor support moderate the relationship between employee’s. 6.

(14) perception of environmental CSR activities and employee engagement?. Significance of the Study There are three major contributions in the current study. First, in academic aspect, the result of this study can fill the gaps mentioned previously. In addition, the moderating effect of perceived supervisor support on the relationship between employee’s perception of CSR and employee engagement had never been examined, so the researcher will know more details from the outcome of this study. Second, a survey conducted in the end of 2005 indicated that over sixty percent of HR professionals concerned about the ways to enhance employee engagement and productivity (HR Focus, 2006). Therefore, this research can be a reference for HR practitioners to convince others in organizations to take CSR as an approach to deal with the disengaged workforce. Third, for large organizations which can take the result of this study as an evidence to select those who can truly deliver organizations’ value, communicate firms’ messages and support inferiors as supervisors, otherwise, it is difficult for employees to perceive the substantial influence from organizations’ CSR implementation. Only when employees perceive higher degree of shared ownership, they will engage more of themselves in the work as reciprocation (Glavas & Piderit, 2009).. Definition of Terms Employee’s Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility Employee’s Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility is described as the perception that an organization’s employee hold toward the influence of the firm’s. 7.

(15) strategies and initiatives on the felicity of all its stakeholders and the environment (Glavas & Godwin, 2013).. Employee Engagement Employee Engagement is defined as the degree that one’s cognitive, emotional, and physical energy be authentically showed out in his or her work roles (Kahn, 1990).. Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS) Perceived Supervisor Support is characterized as the extent that employees perceived their contributions and welfare recognized by their supervisors (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988).. 8.

(16) CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW. Through reviewing the previous literature, this chapter provides diverse points of view respectively related to corporate social responsibility, employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility, employee engagement, and perceived supervisor support. Further, the hypotheses are derived based on the contents.. Corporate Social Responsibility Today, it is indisputable that the idea of corporate social responsibility (CSR) becomes more and more popular. However, its concept still lacks a commonly accepted definition (Bučiūnienė & Kazlauskaitė, 2012). World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD, 2002), which provided one of the most widely popular used CSR definitions, addressing that CSR is an organization’s commitment to a discretionary conduct which contributes to the felicity of the society, the local community and the employees at large and causes the development of economy. Another statement about the definition of CSR was provided from Aguinis (2011) who claimed that CSR means the context-specific organizational activities and strategies that consider the triple bottom line of economic, environmental, social performance and stakeholders’ anticipations; this definition was adopted by many authors (e.g., Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Rupp, Williams, & Aguilera, 2010). Around for many centuries, CSR is a construct which firms have to transcend the profits pursuing goal to be responsible to society (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). In the early 1950s, the concerns about the more extensive responsibilities of management in this complex world were introduced by Frank Abrams who was a former executive in Standard Oil Company. Abrams (1951) pointed out that in order to manage in a professional manner, the companies should pay more attention on the rights and 9.

(17) interests of their employees, customers and the public, instead of just making profits for the business goals. However, during the 1950s, there was scanty argument that discussed about how business could obtain benefits from the emphasis on CSR. Meanwhile, the main focus was just on firms’ duties to do something good for society (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). The circumstances remain unchanged until the 1960s and beyond when the most significant social movements, including the environmental movement, women’s rights, civil rights and consumers’ issues, happened in the US. From then on, the foundation of CSR was established quickly. The business enterprises had no choice but to think about the adoption of CSR policies, perspectives and practices by the pressure from the changing social context (Carroll & Shabana, 2010). Nevertheless, it is worth knowing that without the efforts of making important social legislation in the early 1970s from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the notion of CSR couldn’t become indelibly clear (Carroll, 1991). Since CSR does not have a universally accepted definition, different authors hold distinct point of views to describe this concept, here are some primary divisions based on the literature. Carroll (1979, 1991) categorized CSR into four dimensions which encompass the economic, legal, ethical, and discretionary [later pointed out as philanthropic] responsibilities; the above can be seen as the expectations that society has toward the organization. This four-part conceptual classification made up of complete CSR dimensions, it is saying that CSR for the purpose of being widely acknowledged has to contain the extensive scope of responsibilities, including the economic aspect which is the essence of a business enterprise (Carroll, 1991).. 10.

(18) First, economic responsibilities refer to make profits, sell products and services to society which are the most fundamental and primary essence for a business enterprise. All of these have to be achieved before companies want to pursuit other goals. Second, legal responsibilities imply that business organization as an economic unit of society has to operate its function by obeying the laws and regulations to meet the expectation of government and community. Third, ethical responsibilities indicate that there are some rules and norms which are not codified into law, yet corporations still have to sense and follow them as they embody the concern of civil society. In view of its ill-defined and controversial features, it is hard for companies to handle the duties in approaches seemed as fair, right, and just, and preserve the moral rights of stakeholders containing the environment, customers, employees, suppliers, and others. Finally, philanthropic responsibilities represent that business enterprises actively and voluntarily donate some financial resources, working hours or practice some programs to facilitate the well-being of society, meet the expectation of civil community and be recognized as corporate citizens. Being explained respectively does not mean these four-part categories exclude one another mutually; instead, they have continuous and dynamic tension in between. This classification aims to let employers know more clearly about which components they have to strengthen in order to construct comprehensive CSR (Carroll, 1991). Turker (2009) argued CSR represents a consideration with the needs and objectives of society that far more than only economic focus. Turker (2009) further claimed that CSR can be prescribed as corporate practices influencing stakeholders positively and exceed its economic interest. The literature from Carroll (1991) also mentioned there is a natural link between the organization’s stakeholders and the notion of CSR. The above arguments can be associated with the further developed. 11.

(19) idea of CSR which Freeman (2004) proposed in his stakeholder theory. He proclaimed in order to be perceived as socially responsible, an organization should take into account the rights and interests of its various stakeholders, such as employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers and community; because they all matter crucially to organizational performance outcomes. With the trend of advocating the importance of CSR, another statement argued that CSR practices face decoupling problems which implied some corporations embedded CSR as their strategic tool while some business organizations adopted CSR only for window-dressing objectives (Weaver, Trevin˜o, & Cochran, 1999). Embedded CSR in practice as described by Aguinis and Glavas (2013) meant that all of corporations’ daily routine operations and policies level from an individual to the whole organization have to be directly linked to the construct of CSR with which integrated companies’ central competencies and strategies. Some companies did not voluntarily value the importance of CSR; instead, they just took it as a passive approach to deal with the massive pressure from community. For instance, in the early 1990s, Nike had no choice but to aware of CSR idea after encountering a large-scale boycott from the customers as it was accused of abusing some of its Indonesian suppliers by the famous media (Porter & Kramer, 2006). In fact, Porter and Kramer (2006) stated that for those companies which utilized CSR methods for reconciling the requests from pressure groups, their CSR actions declined as a series of incoherent, temporary, and opposing responses, which firms cannot get any strategic advantage inside. Today, CSR trend focuses more on how firms can strategically and actively incorporate CSR into their internal system and combine it with their resources and expertise to deal with the dynamic social issues, then society and companies can get win-win benefits (Porter & Kramer, 2006; Sethi, 1975).. 12.

(20) In the light of this, Porter and Kramer (2006) provided a model that divided CSR into two wide classifications, responsive and strategic. Concentrating on generic social issues or fixing the adverse influence caused by corporations’ value chain execution is the feature of responsive CSR. On the contrary, strategic CSR represents companies locating themselves in a unique status by linking their internal value chain with external social issues to create shared value for both society and companies. Take Toyota as an example, they connect their newest technology with the need of environmental problems – automobile emissions to create the hybrid gasoline/electric vehicle which made Toyota win the competitive advantage among its competitors (Porter & Kramer, 2006).. Employee’s Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility Employees are not only organizations’ important assets, but also are the ones who in charge of transferring CSR ideas to actions (Tsai, Tsang, & Cheng, 2012). As stated by Tsai et al. (2012), it is doubtful that the CSR related contributions and efforts were offered by the higher level managers congruent or well-communicated with the lower level employees. When CSR becomes a growing concern for companies, it no longer covers firms’ philanthropy only, but gradually has evolved as a role for organizations to earn more profits and create competitive advantage, but employees’ voices are usually ignored during this whole process. For the purpose of achieving the biggest advantages of CSR for the organization and the society, it is necessary for corporations and their employees to cooperate with each other and have the same or similar values. Hence, understanding employees’ points of view toward CSR would be the first priority for organizations to re-examine their CSR implementing process. Even though the practical CSR actions that a corporation executes can be rated. 13.

(21) by diversified approaches, Glavas and Godwin (2013) argued that investigating employees’ perception of CSR is an important way to know the reality of organizations’ CSR implementation. Employee’s perception of CSR was defined as the extent that employees perceived organizations support the initiatives related to social issues and it encompasses three dimensions included environmental, philanthropic, and ethical CSR activities (Lee et al., 2013).. Employee Engagement Historically, the first major concern about employee engagement was offered by Kahn (1990) who claimed that those who are engaged express themselves thoroughly in emotional, cognitive and physical toward the work roles they employed in organizations. Actually, engagement can be seemed as a status of which intellectual and emotional committed to a group or organization. An engaged employee refers to whoever has enthusiasm and is completely involved in his or her job (Falcone, 2006). Since Kahn (1990) proposed his argument till today has been around twenty-something, the concept of employee engagement remained unpopular until the recent decade (Saks & Gruman, 2014). Employee engagement becomes more and more prominent because a lot of literature proved it does matter to the company in many aspects. Luthans and Peterson (2002) addressed that Gallup empirically ascertained employee engagement as an important predictor of ideal organizational outcomes. encompassing. retention,. profitability,. consumer. satisfaction. and. productivity (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999). Similarly, Lockwood (2006) pointed out that it is possible to make or break the bottom line by engaging employees. In fact, it is necessary to engage employees constantly, as engaged employees is helpful for the organizations to increase their competitive advantage, which is in line with the. 14.

(22) resource-based view of corporations (Joo & Mclean, 2006). The resource-based view postulates that in contrast to technical, financial or physical assets, human and organizational resources are able to bring a corporation with sustained competitive advantage since they are especially inimitable. (Lado & Wilson, 1994; Wright & McMahan, 1992). Saks and Gruman (2014) clarified that although there are some similar points between the two main definitions offered respectively by Kahn (1990) and Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, and Bakker (2002); their arguments do still have some differences in many perspectives. Kahn (1990) described engagement as “The harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performance” (p. 694). By contrast, those who are in disengagement choose emotionally, physically, or cognitively withdraw and protect themselves when performing their roles (Kahn, 1990). Therefore, an engaged individual will be psychologically present when employing his or her organizational roles (Kahn, 1990). Cognitive energy refers to one’s perception and identification toward his or her work roles and non-work responsibilities (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008). Emotional energy indicates that people as human beings eager to content the personal values and psychological needs (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010). While physical energy implies that people concentrate on particular actions to stimulate their intrinsic motivation like sense of autonomy, competence and discretion (Rich et al., 2010). Noticing an individual’s behavioral demonstration of his or her emotional, physical, and cognitive energy into work roles is a way to observe engagement (Kahn, 1992). In short, engagement represents that people consciously and actively invest their head, heart, and hands into the roles they performed in organizations (Ashforth &. 15.

(23) Humphrey, 1995). Despite being discussed respectively, engagement signifies that an individual involves his or her emotional, cognitive, and physical energy into work roles in a linkage simultaneously instead of presenting in a fragmented way (Kahn, 1992). The other influential definition argued by Schaufeli et al. (2002) that the two distinctive states, engagement and burnout are direct opposite of each other. Engagement means “A positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (p.74). Two major features of burnout are exhaustion (low activation) and cynicism (low identification); while engagement is composed of vigor (high activation) and dedication (high identification) (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Then they provided a further argument that instead of being a temporary and particular status, engagement represents a more steady and ubiquitous affective-cognitive state which is not centralized on any specific individual, activity, behavior or object. According to the literature, almost every author concerned about confusing the construct of engagement with some other concepts, such as job satisfaction (one’s attitude toward his or her job), organizational commitment (one attached to his or her organization emotionally), and job involvement (the extent that one view his or her job as the core part to their identity); yet engagement is a unique idea which level is higher than other motivational concepts (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011). Likewise, Gubman (2004) also mentioned that engagement has a distinct meaning from satisfaction; engagement represents “A heightened emotional connection to a job and organization that goes beyond satisfaction” (p.43). Having such an emotional connection can stimulate employees have better performance and decrease their intention to leave employers (Gubman, 2004). On the other hand, as clarified by. 16.

(24) Schaufeli and Salanova (2011) that employee engagement encompasses employees’ relationship with their occupational role, job and organization; yet work engagement particularly implies the connection between the employees and their work.. Employee’s Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility and Employee Engagement Nowadays, more and more companies utilize CSR as a strategy to recruit prospective employees, increase employee morale and retain talents; as employee is recognized as a crucial stakeholder for an organization (Slack et al., 2015). However, when most of the studies highly addressed CSR as the organization has to remain a good relationship with its stakeholders such as employees, the studies that discussed CSR based on individual level-of-analysis are very little (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Especially, scant studies mentioned specifically on the relationship between CSR and employee engagement (Glavas, 2016). Nevertheless, some research did prove that CSR has positive relationship with employee engagement. For example, Caligiuri, Mencin, and Jiang (2013) discovered that CSR positively affected employee engagement. In addition, Glavas (2012) complemented that employees’ perception of superior meaningfulness and value congruence from work might be the two reasons of why CSR has positive relationship with employee engagement. Instead of establishing the formal rule on paper, CSR gives organization chances to practice its value substantially, which makes the employees better understand the company’s value (Jones, Willness, & Madey, 2014). In the circumstances when people sense the values of their working organizations are congruence with their personal values, and the role performance anticipated by the organizations are compliance with people’s desired self-image, people are more likely. 17.

(25) feel meaningful in their work and increase engagement naturally (Chatman, 1989; Kahn, 1990, 1992; Kristof, 1996). Social exchange theory can be applied to understand the CSR-engagement relationship more clearly. Social exchange theory postulates that economic and social exchanges are two types of exchange in organization (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996). Economic exchange refers to the monetary reward; while social exchange indicates the nonmonetary side of employment, and has undefined responsibilities with frequent indirect routes of exchange (Blau, 1964). As described by Organ (1988), the discretionary conduct and extra role actions are direct related to the idea of social exchange. Social exchange theory points out the relationship between employee and employer is reciprocal interdependence, both sides produce the obligations naturally via their continuous interactions (Saks, 2006). This argument is in line with the explanation that viewed engagement as a mutual relationship between the employee and employer (Robinson, Perryman, & Hayday, 2004). In order to know more details of workplace conduct, Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) proclaimed that Social exchange theory may be one of the most powerful conceptual models. To reciprocate the resources that obtained from organizations, employees tend to feel obligated to dedicate themselves more thoroughly into the roles they performed in organizations (Kahn, 1990). On the other hand, if corporations are not able to offer the resources that employees want, employees have higher possibility to disengage in their performing roles (Kahn, 1990). Accordingly, the degree of emotional, cognitive, and physical energy that employees bring into their performing roles in the workplace is contingent upon how many socioemotional and economic resources they acquired from corporations (Saks, 2006). Glavas and Piderit (2009) found that perceived CSR significantly correlated with. 18.

(26) employee engagement. Further, Glavas (2016) found that perceived CSR has the largest influence on employees when they can express their fully selves at work (i.e., authenticity) due to the execution of CSR. Supported by Rokeach (1973) and Heidegger (1962) who assumed that all human beings have the need for caring, people cannot express their whole selves and may less engage in their work if this need cannot be valued. Conversely, corporations that highly endeavored in CSR practices provide humanized working environment for their employees and value more on their needs rather than treat them as a profit-making machine. Thus, employees are allowed to show more of their true selves during the working process (Glavas & Piderit, 2009). Based on the above statements, the researcher presumed that if an organization could treat its employees fairly, make them feel meaningful in their work roles, and care about their voices, then employees were more likely to increase their engagement toward the works. Hence, the researcher proposed the following hypothesis:. Hypothesis 1a: Employees who perceive higher degree of philanthropic CSR activities have higher degree of employee engagement. Hypothesis 1b: Employees who perceive higher degree of ethical CSR activities have higher degree of employee engagement. Hypothesis 1c: Employees who perceive higher degree of environmental CSR activities have higher degree of employee engagement.. Perceived Supervisor Support (PSS) Perceived supervisor support (PSS) refers to the degree which employees perceived their contribution, well-being, and socioemotional needs are valued and. 19.

(27) satisfied by supervisors. The concept including employees’ feeling of respect, support, and belonging, which can increase employees’ morale and lead to desired organizational outcomes (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988). Kottke and Sharafinski (1988) asserted that employees’ perception of being supported can be distinguished into two kinds of support, one from the entire organization and the other from their immediate supervisor. Actually, prior research such as Greller and Herold (1975) found that instead of getting the working information from colleagues or organizations, employees prefer to obtain it from their supervisors. In addition, the feedback given by the closest supervisor is more valuable to employees. Supervisors act as agents of organizations who have duties to supervise and appraise inferiors’ performance. Therefore, employees take supervisors’ favorable or unfavorable actions toward them as the index of organizations’ support. In short, people view their supervisors’ conduct and beliefs as the representation of their organizations’ values (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986; Levinson, 1965). According to the literature, supervisors can win more satisfied employees by creating a supportive environment (Jose & Mampilly, 2015; Laschinger, Finegan, & Shamian, 2001). Found by Malatesta (1995) that subordinates’ extra-role performance fostered by PSS can not only be advantageous to supervisors but also be favorable to entire organizations. Consistent with the point that PSS has positive relationship with perceived organizational support (Kottke & Sharafinski, 1988; Malatesta, 1995; Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). PSS reinforces employees to enhance their organizational commitment and feel obligation to assist supervisors and organizations to reach their objectives (Eisenberger, Armeli, Rexwinkel, Lynch, & Rhoades, 2001; Rhoades et al., 2001).. 20.

(28) The Moderating Role of Perceived Supervisor Support Prior studies found that numerous organizations’ CSR practices do really matter with employees and can further increase their engagement such as employee volunteerism program (Davies & Crane, 2010; Lindorff & Peck, 2010), reasonable working environment, fair pay, a reasonable level of security (Herzberg, 1959, 1968), and the learning opportunities for employees (Czarnowsky, 2008). It is worth noticing that all of the above initiatives provided by organizations will not be accomplished and carried out thoroughly without support from supervisors. Supervisors act as key agents to promote firms’ CSR values to employees. As described by Eisenberger, Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, and Rhoades (2002), subordinates tend to identify supervisors as the ones who embodied organizations’ features, so employees have high possibility to associate the supportive treatments from supervisors with organizations and further influence their perception toward firms’ CSR. On the other hand, in most of large organizations, CSR initiatives are usually operated by a specific department merely instead of involving each individual to participate the CSR decision-making process (Brammer & Millington, 2003). In order to make employees clearly perceive the positive influence and get shared values from organizational CSR initiatives, it is important to incorporate CSR idea into the daily working environment, and communicate the related message in a transparent approach (Chong, 2009). These tasks can be fulfilled only when supervisors acting as the. critical. bridges. between. organizations. and. employees. practice. their. responsibilities completely. With the stronger supports from supervisors, employees perceive philanthropic, ethical CSR and environmental CSR in a right manner and value which will increase their engagement on the work. Therefore, the researcher proposed that perceived supervisor support significantly and positively moderates the. 21.

(29) relationship between employee’s perception of CSR and employee engagement.. Hypothesis 2a: Perceived supervisor support significantly and positively moderates the relationship between employee’s perception of philanthropic CSR activities and employee engagement. Hypothesis 2b: Perceived supervisor support significantly and positively moderates the relationship between employee’s perception of ethical CSR activities and employee engagement. Hypothesis 2c: Perceived supervisor support significantly and positively moderates the relationship between employee’s perception of environmental CSR activities and employee engagement.. 22.

(30) CHAPTER III. METHODOLOGY. This chapter demonstrated the research methods involved in the current study, including research framework, hypotheses, sample, data collection, questionnaire design, pilot test, measurement, control variables, and data analysis.. Research Framework The present study proposed employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility as independent variable and it was divided into three dimensions including philanthropic CSR, ethical CSR and environmental CSR, while employee engagement acted as dependent variable. Perceived supervisor support played as a moderator on the relationship between employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility and employee engagement. The research framework is shown in Figure 3.1.. Perceived Supervisor Support. H2. Employee’s Perception of Corporate Social. Responsibility Philanthropic CSR Activities. Employee Engagement. H1. Ethical CSR Activities Environmental CSR Activities. Control Variables  Age. Figure 3.1. Research framework..  Position Level  Organizational Tenure 23.

(31) Research Hypotheses Based on the multiple literature review and the objective of this study, the following hypotheses have been proposed: H1a: Employees who perceive higher degree of philanthropic CSR activities have higher degree of employee engagement. H1b: Employees who perceive higher degree of ethical CSR activities have higher degree of employee engagement. H1c: Employees who perceive higher degree of environmental CSR activities have higher degree of employee engagement. H2a: Perceived supervisor support significantly and positively moderates the relationship between employee’s perception of philanthropic CSR activities and employee engagement. H2b: Perceived supervisor support significantly and positively moderates the relationship between employee’s perception of ethical CSR activities and employee engagement. H2c: Perceived supervisor support significantly and positively moderates the relationship between employee’s perception of environmental CSR activities and employee engagement.. Research Design In order to know more details about the current CSR implementing situation in the large organizations, an empirical research was performed to test the impact of employee’s perception of philanthropic CSR, ethical CSR and environmental CSR on employee engagement as well as the moderating effect of perceived supervisor support on these relationships. A quantitative research approach was applied to. 24.

(32) examine the hypotheses proposed in this study. The items in the questionnaire aimed to investigate participants’ perception toward their organizations’ CSR activities, their degree of engagement and their perception of supervisors’ support. After identifying the target samples and confirming the reliability of the instruments, data collection procedure was carried out for a month. Finally, statistical approaches were applied for generating the findings and final implications of the present study.. Research Procedure The research procedure of this study contains eight steps totally. Stimulated by the strong interest in CSR field, the researcher decided to do the study related to this issue at the very beginning. In order to explore more information about CSR and understand its current trend, the first step of the research procedure was to review a variety of literature related to CSR. Based on the literature in CSR field, the researcher tried to find the other antecedents and outcome variables for finalizing the research framework and identifying the main purpose of the present study. Next, the research questions and all the hypotheses of this study were thereby generated subsequently. Afterwards, based on the literature and the purpose of this study, the instruments of all the variables were selected. Then, a pilot test was conducted for confirming the reliability of the measurements. After verifying the reliability was in consistent with the prior research, the data collection procedure was performed. Later, data analysis was carried out as well for examining the hypotheses and research questions of this study. At last, all the conclusions, theoretical and practical implications, research limitations and future research suggestions were summarized based on the findings of this study. The procedure is presented in Figure 3.2.. 25.

(33) Review Literature. Finalize Research Framework and Identify Research Purpose. Develop Research Questions and Hypotheses. Select Instruments. Pilot Test. Collect Data. Analyze Data. Conclusions. Figure 3.2. Research procedure. 26.

(34) Sample The target population in the current study involved 427 full-time employees working in the Taiwan large corporations with annual revenue more than NT$10 billion. In light of the view that the annual Excellence in Corporate Social Responsibility Award held by CommonWealth Magazine identified the large organizations as the ones with annual revenue more than NT$10 billion (CommonWealth Magazine, 2016). Thus, the present study adopted the same standard to define the large organization. The final question listed in the end of the questionnaire which the participants were asked to fill in their company’s full name was set for helping the researcher to identify whether the organizations’ annual revenue were more than NT$10 billion. Only the ones with identified company’s names were considered in this study, and then the researcher checked the organizations’ annual revenue one by one through the annual revenue compiled list presented on the official website of Taiwan Stock Exchange Corporation. The researcher used the annual revenue compiled list in 2015 as the database to check whether the organizations’ annual revenue did exceed NT$10 billion (TWSE, 2016). Please refer to Appendix B to see the details of sample source. In light of the fact offered by Davies and Crane (2010) that large corporations and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) adopt different ways to execute CSR as well as the current situation that in contrast to SMEs, Taiwanese large enterprises seem to put more effort on CSR implementation due to facing more pressures from the stakeholders on the whole. Furthermore, under the consideration that the overall resources and the human resource department in SMEs would not be as well-functioned as large corporations in Taiwan, so focusing on the big companies might have better future effect for transferring the implications of this study to the 27.

(35) practical field. Hence, the present study merely collected samples from the large organizations.. Data Collection In order to insure the reliability of the measurement, a pilot test was conducted with 45 samples. The final data collection was conducted by applying convenient sampling method through the months of March and April 2017. During this period of time, both paper-based questionnaire and online questionnaire were distributed through the research’s personal network. All the participants answered the questions in a self-administered method. Through the assistance from the researcher’s friends and the acquaintances working in the large organizations with annual revenue more than NT$10 billion, a total of 90 paper-based questionnaires were delivered and 74 were returned. 69 out of 74 questionnaires are valid and analyzed in the current study with a valid response rate showed as 77%. As for the online questionnaires, the total received questionnaires were 477, but among them, only 358 questionnaires are valid and adopted in the present study with a valid response rate of 75 %.. Questionnaire Design The questionnaire was designed to collect data on employee’s perception of CSR, employee engagement and perceived supervisor support. All of the items in questionnaire were initially developed in English, yet the items would be translated into Chinese finally due to the consideration that most of the participants are Taiwanese. Hence, in order to ensure the consistency, back translation method was applied in the end of the questionnaire designing process.. 28.

(36) Measurement The measurements adopted for the present study containing employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility, employee engagement and perceived supervisor support.. Employee’s Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility Based on the scales developed by Lichtenstein, Drumwright, and Braig (2004), Maignan and Ferrell (2001), and Montgomery and Stone (2009), Lee et al. (2013) did some modification and created a new scale for testing employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility. In light of the view that this new scale was applied for the Asian context, the current study adopted this scale to measure employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility as well. The scale encompasses 14 items and has three dimensions including philanthropic, ethical, and environmental activities. In the current study, the Cronbach’s alpha values of these three dimensions were demonstrated as 0.94, 0.93 and 0.93 respectively. All items are rated on a six-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 6=strongly agree) for the purpose of avoiding a usual response bias that Chinese people tend to conceal their true thinking by selecting the mid-point of the scale as answers (Chiu & Yang, 1987); all the other scales of the present study were followed the same rule. The total items of employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility are demonstrated in Table 3.1.. 29.

(37) Table 3.1. Employee’s Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility Scale Dimensions. Items 1 2. 3 Philanthropic CSR activities. 4. 5. 6. 7. Ethical CSR activities. Environmental CSR activities. 8. 9. My company helps solve social problems. My company has a strong sense of corporate social responsibility. My company gives adequate contributions to local communities. My company allocates some of their resources to philanthropic activities. My company plays a role in society that goes beyond the mere generation of profits. My company encourages its employees to participate in voluntarily activities. My company emphasizes the importance of its social responsibilities to its employees. My company organizes ethics training programs for its employees. My employees are required to provide full and accurate information to all customers.. 10. My company has a comprehensive code of conduct.. 11. My company is recognized as a trustworthy company.. 12. My company tries to offer environmentally friendly products.. 13. My company has an environmentally related mission.. 14. My company makes an all out efforts to maintain and preserve the environment.. Note. Adapted from “Employee Perception of CSR Activities: Its antecedents and consequences,” by E. M. Lee, S. Y. Park, and H. J. Lee. 2013, Journal of Business Research, 66(10), pp. 1716-1724. Copyright 2013 by the Elsevier.. 30.

(38) Employee Engagement Different scholars held different perspectives to describe employee engagement. Saks and Gruman (2014) stated that the definition offered by Kahn (1990) was the most comprehensive one, as it encompassed the entire self in a role. In light of the criticism offered by Newman and Harrison (2008) that none of any existing instruments could completely demonstrate Kahn’s (1990) conceptualization, Rich et al. (2010) developed a more comprehensive scale to reflect Kahn’s idea. Actually, Rich et al. (2010) called this instrument as job engagement scale. Nevertheless, a lot of researchers still recognized it as one of the most popular measurements for employee engagement (Alagaraja & Shuck, 2015; Gupta & Sharma, 2016; Nimon, Shuck, & Zigarmi, 2016). Thus, the current study also used this 18-item scale to measure employee engagement. The scale was divided into three dimensions including physical engagement, emotional engagement, and cognitive engagement with Cronbach’s alpha showed as 0.97 in this study. All items were rated on eight-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 8=strongly agree). The total items of employee engagement are demonstrated in Table 3.2.. 31.

(39) Table 3.2. Employee Engagement Scale Dimensions. Items 1. I work with intensity on my job.. 2. I exert my full effort to my job.. Physical. 3. I devote a lot of energy to my job.. engagement. 4. I try my hardest to perform well on my job.. 5. I strive as hard as I can to complete my job.. 6. I exert a lot of energy on my job.. 7. I am enthusiastic in my job.. 8. I feel energetic at my job.. Emotional. 9. I am interested in my job.. engagement. 10. I am proud of my job.. 11. I feel positive about my job.. 12. I am excited about my job.. 13. At work, my mind is focused on my job.. 14. At work, I pay a lot of attention to my job.. Cognitive. 15. At work, I focus a great deal of attention on my job.. engagement. 16. At work, I am absorbed by my job.. 17. At work, I concentrate on my job.. 18. At work, I devote a lot of attention to my job.. Note. Adapted from “Job Engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance,” by B. L. Rich, J. A. LePine, and E. R. Crawford. 2010, Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), pp. 617-635. Copyright 2010 by the Academy of Management.. Perceived Supervisor Support The present study adopted the scale that Cheng, Jiang, and Riley (2003) had ever applied on PSS in Taiwan business context. Revised from Eisenberger et al. (1986) and Yoon and Thye (2000), the scale has four items and all items were rated on a. 32.

(40) six-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 6=strongly agree) with Cronbach’s alpha exhibited as 0.94 in this study. The total items of perceived supervisor support are demonstrated in Table 3.3.. Table 3.3. Perceived Supervisor Support Scale Items 1. My supervisor offers help when I am in a personal crisis.. 2. My supervisor is willing to listen to my job-related problems.. 3. My supervisor recognizes my excellent performance.. 4. My supervisor is willing to give me a chance to remedy when I make a mistake.. Note. Adapted from “Organizational Commitment, Supervisory Commitment, and Employee Outcomes in the Chinese Context: Proximal hypothesis or global hypothesis?” by B. S. Cheng, D. Y. Jiang, and J. H. Riley. 2003, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(3), pp. 313-334. Copyright 2003 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.. Control Variables Found by the previous scholars that employee engagement might be influenced by some of the demographic variables. Hence, the demographic variables will be incorporated into the questionnaire as well. The control variables listed below are the ones that be taken into consideration.. Age Schaufeli and Enzmann (1998) mentioned that the degree of work engagement was a little bit higher with age. Some of the recent studies related to employee 33.

(41) engagement also viewed age as one of control variables (Holland, Cooper, & Sheehan, 2016; Wang & Hsieh, 2013). Age was put in the personal information part in the end of the questionnaire with an open question to let the respondents fill in their age.. Organizational Tenure Allen, Poteet, and Russell (1998) pointed out that an individual who has longer duration of employment in an organization may have higher possibility to reach a plateau, thus leading to decrease the degree of engagement. The idea that employee engagement would be influenced by organizational tenure was supported by a number of studies as well (Glavas & Piderit, 2009; Holland et al., 2016; Sonnentag, 2003). Organizational tenure was put in the last page of the questionnaire as well with an open question to let the respondents fill in their organizational tenure.. Position Level Glavas and Piderit (2009) had ever mentioned that whether an individual works in senior management should be taken into consideration when discuss about the effect of engagement. Found by Wang and Hsieh (2013) that position level would significantly influenced employee engagement. In contrast to the lower level workers, higher level employees supposed to be more engaged in the wok roles (Kahn, 1990, 1992). Due to the higher ranking managers tend to receive more job resources than the lower level workers (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Position level was measured with four options from (1) staff to (4) first-line manager.. Method of Data Analysis The data on the collected questionnaires will be analyzed by the statistic software 34.

(42) of IBM SPSS 22.0. During data analysis process, the following approaches will be adopted containing descriptive statistics, confirmatory factor analysis, Pearson correlation analysis and hierarchical regression analysis. First of all, descriptive statistics was used for the purpose of knowing more general background of the participants. By applying this technique, some of the results of this study would be generated including the means, standard deviation, variance, and inter-correlation among all the variables. In addition, the distribution pattern and percentages of demographic information would be demonstrated as well. Second, before testing the hypotheses, the researcher conducted Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) first by using AMOS 22.0 to verify whether our data were fit into a measurement model. CFA is a universal statistical technique which has been used for examining the relations among three latent variables. CFA not only provides a more rigorous and accurate approach to evaluate unidimensionality, but also offers a quantitative evidence to ensure internal and external consistency among all measures (Segars, 1997). When it turns to determine model fit, some common important indices cannot be ignored such as chi square divided by degree of freedom (χ²/df), RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation), CFI (comparative fit index), and GFI (goodness of fit index). Please refer to Table 3.4. for more details about the criteria of the suggested model fit. Besides, Fornell and Larcker (1981) had ever mentioned that in order to have proper construct validity, CR (composite reliability) should be higher than .80 while AVE (average variance extracted) should be higher than .50.. 35.

(43) Table 3.4. Criteria of Suggested Model Fit Index. Threshold. χ²/df. 2-5. RMSEA. Root mean square error of approximation. <0.08 Good fit 0.08~0.10 Mediocre fit. CFI. Comparative fit index. >0.90. NFI. Normed fit index. >0.90. IFI. Incremental fit index. >0.90. Tucker-Lewis index=. >0.90. TLI. Non normed fit index (NNFI). GFI. Goodness of fit index. >0.90. AVE. Average variance extracted. >0.50. CR. Composite reliability. >0.80. Note. Adapted from “Structural Equation Modeling: Guidelines for determining model fit,” by D. Hooper, J. Coughlan, and M. R. Mullen. 2008, Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), pp. 53-60. Copyright 2008 by Dublin Institute of Technology.. Next, Pearson Correlation Analysis was also conducted in this study for examining the strength of the correlations between employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility, employee engagement, and perceived supervisor support. The Pearson’s correlation (γ) was applied for investigating whether there is linear or direct correlation between each variable. When the correlation is high, it represents that there is a strong relationship between two variables. The figure of correlation should between 1 and -1. When γ =1 represents perfect correlation, γ =0, it is no correlation; while γ = -1 means perfect negative correlation. When γ is lower to. 36.

(44) 0.4, it is regarded as low correlation; medium correlation is considered γ between 0.4 and 0.7; high correlation is considered γ over 0.7. The correlation coefficient will demonstrate whether variables are related and considered as the base when explaining whether a variable can make predictions of the outcome variable. The last one is Hierarchical Regression Analysis which was applied for checking the hypotheses and examining the moderating effect of perceived supervisor support in the relationship between employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility and employee engagement. First, control variables were incorporated. Next, employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility acted as the independent variable was included. Then, employee engagement served as the dependent variable was entered. At last, the researcher investigated whether perceived supervisor support will influence employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility and employee engagement.. 37.

(45) Validity and Reliability Pilot Test Before the final data collection process, a pilot test was conducted for identifying the confusing items and inappropriate descriptions existed in the questionnaire as well as confirming the reliability of the instruments. A total of 45 pilot samples were collected during this procedure and all the respondents were given paper-based questionnaires. After collecting 45 samples, SPSS 22.0 was applied for verifying the reliabilities of the variables. The result was presented in Table 3.5. The commonly accepted criterion of Cronbach’s Alpha is higher than 0.70 (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011), and the results showed that the Cronbach’s Alpha of all the variables were all above 0.85. Thus, none of any modification has been done in this stage.. Table 3.5. Reliability (n=45) Cronbach’s Alpha. Variables 1. Philanthropic CSR. 0.93. 2. Ethical CSR. 0.86. 3. Environmental CSR. 0.93. 4. Employee engagement. 0.97. 5. Perceived supervisor support. 0.95. 38.

(46) Confirmatory Factor Analysis CFA result of employee’s perception of CSR. In the beginning, all 14 items measuring the independent variable was tested through confirmatory factor analysis in AMOS. About the related result, the confirmatory factor analysis of employee’s perception of CSR (Table 3.6.) and CFA measurement model (Figure 3.4.) were reported in the following section. In addition, the histogram of the skewness and kurtosis of employees’ perception of CSR was also demonstrated in Figure 3.3.. Table 3.6. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Employee’s Perception of CSR (n=427). Variable. Error. Factor. variance. loading. 1. .36. .88. 12.190***. 2. .36. .88. 12.108***. Philanthropic. 3. .51. .84. 12.992***. CSR activities. 4. .42. .87. 12.432***. 5. .42. .87. 12.418***. 6. .70. .81. 13.187***. 7. .39. .89. 10.542***. 8. .74. .78. 13.185***. 9. .44. .84. 12.240***. 10. .26. .91. 9.846***. 11. .38. .87. 11.619***. 12. .48. .85. 12.468***. 13. .19. .94. 8.228***. 14. .28. .92. 10.162***. Dimensions. Employee’s Perception of CSR. Ethical CSR activities. Environmental CSR activities. No.. T value. CR. AVE. 0.94. 0.74. 0.93. 0.74. 0.93. 0.82. χ²=481.084; df=74; χ²/df= 6.501; RMSEA=.114; CFI=.938; TLI=.923; IFI=.938. 39.

(47) Figure 3.3. Skewness and kurtosis model of employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility.. Figure 3.4. Measurement model of employee’s perception of corporate social responsibility.. 40.