Regression Model for Work Engagement of Millennial Generation

Workforce

Rina Mulyati1, Fathul Himam

, Bagus Riyono

, Fendy Suhariadi

Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Gadjah Mada Jogjakarta, Indonesia

Fakultas Psikologi Universitas Airlangga Surabaya, Indonesia

Keywords: Regression Model, Work Engagement, Meaningful Work, Millennial Generation Workforce

Abstract: There were lots of studies on person-job fit proved to promote meaningful work and work engagement, still

there is no evidence about the role of meaningful work as mediator between person-job fit and work

engagement for millennial generation workforce. The Millennials will dominate 50% of the workforce in

2020 and predicted to be increasing to 75% in 2025. The Millennial Generation has distinctive

characteristics compared to those of previous generations (Baby Boomers and Generation X). They are

easily quitting their job sometimes because they just wanted to. Therefore, management needs strategies to

retain them and make them more engage in their work. Regression analysis with bootstrap method was used

to investigate the hypothesis that meaningful work mediates the effect of person-job fit on work

engagement. Respondents involved in this study were the employees (N= 47) from state-owned company

(BUMN) with 5.4 years working experience in average (SD = 2.34). Results indicated that person-job fit

was a significant predictor for meaningful work whereas meaningful work plays as mediator between

person-job fit and work engagement. To escalate work engagement for millennials, management need to

create work design that promote fitness between workers and their jobs in order to make them experience

meaningful work.

1 INTRODUCTION

The engagement into work for millennial workforce

needs to get more serious attention because they will

dominate 50% of the workforce in 2020 and

predicted to be increasing to 75% in 2025. Number

of studies show that the engagement of millennial

generations into their work were the lowest

compared to the previous generation (Abercombie,

2014; Chawla, Dokadia and Rai, 2017; Rigoni and

Nelson, 2016). Data from Gallup shows only one-

third of U.S. employees (and 15 percent worldwide)

are actively engaged in their jobs. The number of

millennial employees who feel strongly connected to

their company’s mission is similarly low (40%).

Work engagement has a positive impact on the

individual’s performance as well as for the

organizations (Christian and Slaughter, 2011; Dalal,

et al., 2012; Kim, Kolb and Kim, 2012; Robertson,

Birch and Cooper, 2012; Singh and Karki, 2015;

Yongxing, et al., 2017; Muslim and Suhariadi, 2018)

and became the key to winning the competition in

the 4

era of industrial revolution. It is not just

keeping people focused on their daily workload

since engagement in the 21

century means there is a

sense of connection with organizations’ mission, of

understanding of purpose, of contribution and the

possibility to learn and develop. Technology,

incentive, rewards or Workforce Optimization (a

business strategy that integrates contact centre

technologies for customer experience to promote

operational efficiency) are no longer the key to be

more productive in work. It is more important that

employees have strong connection with their job,

with their colleagues and with the business as a

whole (Evaluagent, n.d.). When employees fully

connected with their company’s mission and with

senior leaders and also direct managers, they are

more likely to be engaged and companies with

engaged employees outperform those without by up

to 202 percent—even in a volatile marketplace

(Waite, 2018)

Organizations need to put work engagement

within employees into priority since its absence

becomes the root of the problem in the employees’

commitment and motivation (Aktouf, 1992). Bakker

Mulyati, R., Himan, F., Riyono, B. and Suhariadi, F.

Regression Model for Work Engagement of Millennial Generation Workforce.

DOI: 10.5220/0008591405050515

In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings (ICP-HESOS 2018) - Improving Mental Health and Har mony in

Global Community, pages 505-515

ISBN: 978-989-758-435-0

505

and Oerlemans (2011) propose work engagement as

a positive form of work-related subjective well-

being to explain how workers perceive and find their

work as stimulating and energizing, interesting and

also challenging so they devote their time in a

significant and meaningful effort. They are happy

with their work and compare to unhappy employees,

they are productive (Lyubomirsky, King and Diener,

2005), more active, more enthusiastic about work,

and more persistent in the face of adversity (Bakker

and Oerlemans, 2011).

Nielsen (2013) suggests organizations to change

“top-down” work redesign approach in which

management focused on optimizing job demands

and resources to create success into individualized

approach, that is taking each individual as an active

creator for own work and considering the flexibility

in adjusting with own working environment. Gordon

et al., (2018), Tims, Bakker and Derks, (2015) found

that an individualized work redesign approach

shown to significantly improve employee well-

being at work such as work engagement and

performance. Other factors that contributes to

employees’ work engagement are organizational

support, emotional labour, management by

objectives and quality of life (Septiyani and Himam,

2013; Utomo, Riyono and Budiharto, 2017;

Purboarum and Riyono, 2017) and in turn, work

engagement significantly becomes mediating

variable for employees’ performance (Muslim and

Suhariadi, 2018).

The ability to organize work has an important

implication on individual psychological health and

happiness since work can serve as resources for

survival, access to relational connections, and

experience in gaining control over life (Blustein,

2008). Having employee with enthusiastic and

meaningful work experience, fundamentally and

significantly contribute to organization success

(Steger, Dik and Duffy, 2012) therefore can be basis

for management to create work design that promote

motivating and meaningful working experience

(Humphrey, Nahrgang and Morgeson, 2007)

Employees develop engagement at work when

they find a sense of meaning related to work, have

capability to express ideas and opinions freely and

easy access to work resources. Interpersonal factors

as a contextual characteristic, serve as media in

creating psychological meaning, security, and

availability for employees so they will be more

engaged in their work (Kahn, 1990). Meaningful

work is one’s subjective experience about work

which then creating the feeling of significance,

facilitating personal growth, and contributing to the

greater good (Allan, Autin and Duffy, 2016).

Furthermore, meaningful work represent the

discovery of existential meaning from experiencing

positive emotions, finding meaning from work, and

attaining goals at workplace (Lee, 2015) and as

result one can find meaning of his/her work when

there’s coherence between the characteristics one

pursues and the attributes he/she identifies at work.

(Bendassolli, et al. Torres, 2015).

Employees today are likely to have belief that

working is not only a matter of obtaining financial

security but also accomplishing social and

psychological needs (Rosso, Dekas, and

Wrzesniewski, 2010). It is important for employees

to acquire the fitness between the value at work and

their personal beliefs, since it is a key aspect to

psychological significance and the fulfillment of

needs and desires appears to be an important

mechanism in developing meaningful work (Rosso

et al., 2010). Meaningful work will increase when

employees perceive a match between self and the

job (person-job fit). This is in line with the current

notion about employees as an active agent at their

work as they are not only to pursue their personal

desires but also to deliver a meaningful contribution

which in turn produce positive impact on

organization (Arnold et al., 2007; Steger et al.,

2012).

Person-job fit (P-J Fit) is one of four elements of

the person-environment fit (P-E Fit) concept, a

framework in understanding human attitudes and

behaviors in organization setting (Kristof-brown,

Zimmerman and Johson, 2005). P-E fit means

congruence, similarity, correspondence between

people and its environment (Edwards and Shipp,

2007), the condition of which can create positive

impact individually as well as organizationally

(Edwards and Shipp, 2007). Kristof (1996) defines

P-J fit as compatibility between individuals with

certain jobs. Edward (1991) specifically proposes as

the fitness between the abilities of a person and the

demands of a job (i.e., demands-abilities) and the

desires of a person and the attributes of a job (needs-

supplies). Demands-abilities (D-A) fit refers to

capabilities the person has to meet job demands

which include knowledge, skills, abilities and other

characteristics. Need-supplies (N-S) fit means the

preferences and needs of individuals can be

supported by their work that dimensions of interests

and job characteristics as part of it. (Cable and

DeRue, 2002; Cable and Judge, 1996; Chuang,

Shen, and Judge, 2016).

Lewis and Yeoman (2016) also argued that the

millennials workforce considered achieving

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

506

organizational goals are far more important than

reaching financial objectives only—they see

financial success as a consequences of

implementation the right organisational goals and

people policies. The concept of organisational

purpose is the centre of the heart of much millennial

thinking. Personal development has a great impact in

motivating millennial in the workplace far more than

for older generations so it supports the explanation

why personal developments are not as effective as

motivator with each successive age group. Although

there are resemblances in the responses across the

generations but the millennial workforce stresses

more for the environment which provide more

freedom to express ideas and to feel safe doing it, to

have “voice” and the ability to induce decision

making. An employee-owned business is mostly the

kind of businesses which millennials fit in since they

are more likely to stay with their organisation for

over two years.

Some people are more possible to experience

meaningful work solely because they holds certain

personality traits (Lips-Wiersma, 2002;

Wrzesniewski, et al., 1997), but there are also others

factors such as job design, opportunities to interact

with others while working and jobs characteristics

which provide challenge, autonomy, and significant

tasks influence the meaningfulness of work. For the

most part, it is important for the present study to

identify person–job fit as an antecedent of

meaningful work. At the time work is consistent

with the self-concepts and/or identities employees

hold (i.e., person–job fit), the job is likely to be

meaningful. May, Gilson, and Harter (2004)

supports the idea that an encountered fit between the

person and the job is positively connected to

meaningfulness since individuals who experience

suitability are able to express their values and beliefs

in their work (Kira and Balkin, 2014). In sum,

meaningful work can be found at the workplace by

ensuring alignment between an individual's

competencies, values and purpose and the job

(Chalofsky, 2003). It can be concluded that essential

in the existence of meaningful work is the

development of person–job fit (Scroggins, 2008).

Shamir (1991) claims that meaningful work is

associated with various positive work attitudes and

behaviours, including work motivation and the

willingness to put time and effort into the job. When

meaningful work influences motivation and time

spent performing job tasks, then there must be a

connection between meaningful work and job

performance. If work is encountered as meaningful,

then individuals should be fascinated to it and be

enthusiastic to put more time and effort into their

work. Empirical research implies that individuals

who experience work as meaningful have higher

levels of job involvement and spend more time

absorbed in their work (Wrzesniewski 2003).

Certainly, individuals will take higher emphasis and

significance on things that they believe as valuable

and those things in which they find meaning. This is

likely to have positive effects on job performance.

Empirical evidences (Maslach and Leiter, 2008;

Shuck, Reio, and Rocco, 2011) indicate the positive

correlation between person-job fit and work

engagement which means workers who perceive

they have high level of P-J fit certainly show

eagerness in accomplishing their works

enthusiastically and they are likely engaged more

with their work. Cai, et al. (2018) and Enwereuzor,

Ugwu, and Eze (2016) also found significantly

strong positive correlation between person-job fit

and work engagement.

Anitha and Aruna (2016) explored contributing

factors for work engagement in Indian millennial

workers. Natural work style which characterized

with every personnel adapts with other people style

of work play a significant role for work engagement.

Individual has an opportunity to work in their own

way in which create fitness between personal

attributes and job features.

So then, it can be concluded that millennial

workers will find meaningful work when they feel

there are match between self and their works which

in turn lead to work engagement. The hypothesis is

meaningful work serves as mediator between

person-job fit and work engagement in millennial

workforce.

2 METHODS

2.1 Respondents and Procedures

Using quantitative design, this research involved 47

millennial respondents from a state-owned enterprise

in Surabaya Indonesia with 5.32 (SD = 2.40) years

of work experiences in average. They were born

between 1981-1993 with 29,4 years in age

(SD=3,54), 51.06% were male and 63.83% were

married. The educational level of subjects varied as

follows: 23.40% were master degree, 59.57%

undergraduate, 12.77% diploma and 4.26% were

reported having a 2-year associate’s degree.

For the instruments, we use questionnaires in

which we administered back translation from

original version in English into Indonesian and vice

Regression Model for Work Engagement of Millennial Generation Workforce

507

versa. Regression analyses with bootstrapping

method were utilized to examine the data.

2.2 Instruments

2.2.1 Work Engagement

Work engagement of the employee was assessed

using Utrecht Work Engagement Scale-9 (UWES-9;

Schaufeli et al., 2006) which was the short version

of UWES-17. It has only 9 items to assess Vigor (eg.

‘At my work, I feel that I am bursting with energy,

translated into ‘Saya memiliki semangat yang

meluap-luap saat bekerja, dedication (eg. I am proud

of the work that I do, translated into ‘Saya bangga

dengan pekerjaan yang saya lakukan’ and absorption

(eg. ‘I am immersed in my work’ which translated

into ‘Saya larut dalam pekerjaan saya’). The

responses were a 7-point Likert scale range from 0

(never) to 6 (always) and the total scores reflect the

level of work engagement within respondent. The

higher the score the more engaged they become and

vice versa. In the present study, the Cronbach alpha

coefficient for the UWES-9 was 0.868.

2.2.2 Meaningful Work

Adapted from Comprehensive Meaningful Work

Scale (CMWS; Lips-Wiersma and Wright, 2012)

with 6 dimensions, 28 items and use a 5-point Likert

scale. The dimensions are: Unity with others (eg.

‘Saya mempunyai rasa kepemilikan, translated from

‘I have a sense of belonging’, Serving others (eg.

‘Saya merasa betul-betul membantu klien atau

pelanggan’ translated into ‘I feel I truly help our

customers/clients’), Expressing full potential (eg. ‘I

create and apply new ideas or concepts’, translated

into ‘Saya menciptakan dan mengaplikasikan

gagasan atau konsep yang baru’), Expressing full

potential (eg. Saya menciptakan dan

mengaplikasikan gagasan atau konsep yang baru.

translated from ‘I create and apply new ideas or

concepts’), Developing and becoming self (eg. ‘I

don't like who I am becoming at work (reverse

scored), translated into ‘Di tempat kerja, perasaan

saya akan apa yang benar dan salah tidak jelas’),

Reality (eg. ‘Di tempat kerja, kami berhadapan

dengan realitas, translated from ‘At work we face up

to reality’), Inspiration (eg. ‘I feel inspired at work,

translated into’Saya merasa terinspirasi saat

bekerja’) and Balancing tensions (eg. ‘Saya

memiliki keseimbangan antara kebutuhan orang lain

dan kebutuhan saya sendiri’ translated from ‘I have

a good balance between the needs of others and my

own needs’). Cronbach alpha coefficient for the

present study was 0.917

2.2.3 Person-Job Fit

We used the four-item Person-Job Fit measure

which was a subscale from Perceived Person-

Environment Fit (PJFS; Chuang, Shen, and Judge,

2016). It assesses individual subjective evaluation

related to level of compatibility between job

demands and individual abilities. Ratings were

completed using a 7-point Likert scale which

ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly

agree). A sample item was, ‘‘How would you

describe the match between your professional skills,

knowledge, and abilities and those required by the

job?” which then translated into “Bagaimanakah

anda menggambarkan kesesuaian antara

keterampilan, pengetahuan dan kemampuan

professional Anda dengan yang dipersyaratkan oleh

pekerjaan?” In the present study, the Cronbach

alpha coefficient for the PJF was 0.881.

2.3 Data Analysis

Data were analysed using regression technique to

examine the effect of person-job fit to work

engagement via meaningful work. Widhiharso

(2010) suggests that regression model used to

investigate whether independent (predictor) variable

were able to explain the variances within dependent

(criterion) variable. Moreover, the word variance

can be altered with prediction, influence or function

of elevation or depletion. Using regression analysis

model, beside the information about what can

predict score variation, also it has the capability to

explain the power of variation itself.

Person-Job

Fit (X)

Work

Engagement

(Y)

Meaningful

Work (M)

Person-Job

Fit (X)

Work

Engagement

(Y)

c’

Figure 1: Regression analysis model.

Regression model with meaningful work as

mediator (M) explain that Person-Job Fit (X)

predict meaningful work and meaningful work itself

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

508

explain work engagement (Y). The variance of

meaningful work (M) can be described by Person-

Job Fit (X) and also the variance in work

engagement (Y) can be clarified by meaningful work

(M). Complete mediation happened when the

predictor (X) did not explain the variance in the

criterion (Y) but the mediator did. Moreover, the

variable can operate as mediator when the scope of

variation take predictor as well as criterion into

account (Widhiharso, 2010).

Figure 1 demonstrates simple mediation with one

mediator. It shows that the outcome of X divided

into indirect (via M; path a-b) and direct effect to Y

(path c’). The c path is direct predictive value of X

to Y without controlling M to Y whereas c’ path

explain the predictive value of X to Y using M to Y

as control. There are 3 effect in regression model

with mediator in which every effect shows the role

(in predictive function) among variables: Direct

effect (c path), indirect effect (multiplication of a

and b path), and total effect (c’ path, obtained by

adding c’ and ab).

3 RESULT

3.1 Demographic Profile

Table 1. shows demographic information on gender,

year of birth, educational level, marital status, and

working experience in years.

Table 1: Demographic profile.

Profile

Groups

Gender

Male

51,06%

Female

48,94%

Marital Status

Married

63,83%

Single

34,04%

Other

2,13%

Educational

Level

Diploma

12,77%

Undergraduate

59,57%

Professional

4,26%

Master

23,40%

Year of Birth

80 – 85

21,28%

86 – 90

40,43%

91 – 95

38,30%

Working

Experience

≦ 5 years

46,81%

＞ 5 years

53,19%

3.2 Descriptive Statistics

Using percentile to categorize the work engagement

level into 5 groups. Table 2 shows the description of

respondents’ work engagement for each level.

Table 2: Grouping of respondents’ work engagement.

Level

Percentages

Male

Female

Total

X < P20

12,77%

4,26%

17,02%

P20 X<P40

6,38%

12,77%

19,15%

P40 X<P60

6,38%

12,77%

19,15%

P60 X

P80

14,89%

10,64%

25,53%

X  P80

10,64%

8,51%

19,15%

Total

51,06%

48,94%

100,00%

Overall, the respondents’ level of work

engagement was between percentile 40 and 60, that

means at moderate category (mean=4.61, SD=

77,24). Interesting finding from the descriptive data

those were less than 20% of millennial workers were

above percentile 80 in work engagement, and the

highest percentage for a very low and a high level of

work engagement were male respondents.

3.3 Measurement Model

The hypothesis states that meaningful work serves as

mediator between person-job fit and work

engagement in millennial workforce was tested

using bootstrapping procedures simultaneously as

suggested by Preacher and Hayes with the

PROCESS macro in SPSS (Hayes, 2013; Preacher

and Hayes, 2008). To prevent trouble of non-

normality in sampling distribution, we use

bootstrapping method (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). It

recommends that a mediation effect happens when

the product of the paths between the independent

variable and the mediator (path a) and between the

mediator and the dependent variable (path b) is

statistically significant. Further, the indirect effect of

the independent variable should be significant (i.e.,

zero does not occur between LL and UL) through a

bootstrapping test.

The result suggest that his model significantly

can explain 23% of the variance (R

= 0,23, F (2,44)

= 6.54, p < 0,001). The bootstrapping result in table

2 and also in figure 2 shows (a) person-job fit

predicts meaningful work positively ( = .19,

SE=.06, p< .001); (b) meaningful work serves as

predictor for work engagement ( = 1.05, SE = 0,39,

p = 0.01) and(c’) person-job fit cannot directly

Regression Model for Work Engagement of Millennial Generation Workforce

509

predict work engagement (= 0,17, SE = 0,17, p =

0,32). Indirect effect in person-job fit to work

engagement through meaningful work ( = .17, SE =

.07, 95% CI =.05, .33) and Total effect = c’ +

Indirect effect ( = 0,37, SE = 0,17, p = 0,03) were

significantly positive.

Overall, the attempt to predict work engagement

via person-job fit cannot be done directly. It should

be passing through meaningful work. Even one can

have high level of fitness with his/her job, but when

the job itself cannot provide a sense of meaning,

then there will not be any guarantee that one will

highly engaged into his/her work.

Figure 2: Result of regression model.

4 DISCUSSION

The role of meaningful work as mediator between

person-job fit and work engagement has empirical

evidence in this study. Specifically, the hypothesis

that stated there were positive relation between

person-job fit and work engagement in millennial

workforce with meaningful work as mediator was

accepted (see Figure 2). The present study verified a

positive direct relation between person-job fit and

work engagement, and a positive indirect relation

where person-job fit has a positive relation with

work engagement through meaningful work. In sum,

this study increases our understanding of the

meaningful work and work engagement

relationships and highlights the importance of

experiencing meaningful work within organizations.

This research expands our comprehension about

the connection between person-job fit and work

engagement. This study contributes to the growing

body of research on person-job fit by testing how

person-job fit can shift employee perception about

meaning of work and advance previous research on

person-job fit and work engagement (De Beer,

Rothmann and Mostert, 2016; De Beer, Tims and

Bakker, 2016; Lu, et al., 2014), by investigating

more the role through which person-job fit influence

work engagement. Person-job fit leads how

employee thinks, behaves and in the end, engages

into his/her work. The finding of this study increases

our understanding further about the direction of the

person-job fit and meaningful work relationship and

also person-job fit served more as predictor for

meaningful work as opposed to meaningful work as

predictor for person-job fit. This research reveals

that person-job fit is more of a precondition of work

engagement, via meaningful work.

The contribution of this study on meaningful

work literature showed that employees’ meaningful

work mediates the relationship between person-job

fit and work engagement. It provides insights about

mediating role of meaningful work into the relations

between person-job fit and meaningful work and

offers new ways to promote work engagement via

meaningful work by focusing on person-job fit.

Meaningful work is a function of the interaction

between work tasks, the context in which the work is

performed, and the individual’s self-concept. When

job tasks are in line with the individual’s self-

concept, the individual will experience the work as

meaningful. Experienced meaningfulness of work

has motivating capacity and is related to increased

levels of work motivation that underlies numerous

work behaviours such as work engagement.

Furthermore, Kahn (1990) explicitly stated that

psychological meaningfulness as well as

psychological safety and psychological availability

are preconditioned for work engagement. Moreover,

Kahn and Heapy (2014) explain how deepened

purposes has great impact in workers’ engagement.

Other studies (May, Gilson, and Harter, 2004;

Rothmann and Buys, 2011; Rothmann and

Rothmann Jr, 2010) revealed how psychological

meaningfulness significantly predict work

engagement.

An insight about a source of meaningful work

also found in this study and it can be used to provide

direction for the establishment of meaningful work

through the functions of human resource

management such as selection, career planning, and

job design. The implication for the applicant stage is

that meaningful work can be created through the

selection and placement of applicants whose self-

concept matches the tasks of the job. For current

employees, the experiences of meaningful work

might be created through career planning activities

that prepare employees to follow career paths

consistent with their sense of self or via the design

of the job to generate consistency between the work

performed with the individual self-concept.

Some propositions can be derived from the result

of this study about models of employee work

engagement for millennial generation workforce. It

recommends the current models of turnover may

need additional variable in which person-job fit

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

510

variables to be included in work engagement

models. There has been claimed that the engagement

of employees into their work because there is fitness

between self-concept with the job fit and they

experience meaningful work. Since meaningful

work is highly related to the chances of forming

work engagement, so it is important for human

resource professionals to design work that can

generate meaningful work for employees. A method

that can facilitate the development of meaningful

work in employees is using the concept of

perceptual fit in general and self-concept-job fit

specifically. Organizations can attempt to increase

levels of meaningful work among employees by

matching job tasks with individual self-concepts.

This study stressed on intrinsic factors such as

perceived fit and meaningful work that motivate

individuals to engage into his/her work. Individuals’

engagement with the organization because they feel

fit with and experience meaning through the

performance of job tasks. The addition person-job fit

and meaningful work in models of work engagement

for millennial generation workforce may validate

work engagement theories and provide a more

complete assessment of the work engagement

process. An attempt to create good person-job fit,

the management needs to consider the degree that

job tasks and behaviors fit an individual’s self-

concept. The failure to do so may cause the flop to

properly manage and facilitate the development of

desirable job attitudes and behaviors, especially

motivation to engage fully at work.

The limitation of this research concern the study

design. Cross-sectional and non-experimental design

cannot prove causality between the constructs under

study. To determine this causality, future studies

should try to replicate this study using longitudinal

or diary research designs and to explore and better

understand this longitudinal relation. In relation to

variables, some suggestion for future research: First,

focusing on factors that facilitate or hinder the

proposed meaningful work and work engagement

relationship and also examine moderators or

underlying mechanisms that may play a role in

better understanding these relationships such as

including basic need satisfaction as a mechanism

through which job crafting may lead to needs–

supplies fit (Van Den Broeck, et al., 2008).

Secondly, future research may focus on factors that

facilitate or hinder the proposed meaningful work

and work engagement relationship such as personal

characteristics (e.g. self-efficacy) or organizational

characteristics (e.g. person-organization value fit)

that might be critical in the relationship. Third,

future research on the number of samples needs to

be added so that the study has adequate sample size

and increases in statistical power.

In conclusion, this study contributes more

explanation about mediating role of meaningful

work on positive relation between person-job fit and

work engagement for millennial workforce.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank all respondents and also my warmest

gratitude for my dear colleague Mr. Irwan

Kurniawan for supporting the process along the way.

REFERENCES

Abercombie, B. A., 2014. Multigenerational

workforce satisfaction: Relationship between

generational cohorts and employee engagement.

Oklahoma State University. Available at:

<https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/146

75/Abercrombie_okstate_0664D_13467.pdf?seq

uence=1> [accessed June 9 2018]

Aktouf, O., 1992. Management and theories of

organizations in the 1990’s: toward a critical

radical humanism? Academy of Management

Review, [e-journal] 17 (3), pp.407–431.

https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1992.4281975

Allan, B. A., Autin, K. L. and Duffy, R. D., 2016.

Self-determination and meaningful work:

Exploring socioeconomic constraints. Frontiers

in Psychology, [e-journal] 7, pp.71.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00071

Anitha, J. and Aruna, M. 2016. Enablers of

employee engagement of Gen Y at the workplace

with reference to automobile sector. Amity

Journal of Training and Development, 1(1), 93–

108. Available at:

<http://amity.edu/UserFiles/admaa/248Paper

7.pdf> [accessed 12 June 2018]

Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E.

K. and McKee, M. C., 2007. Transformational

leadership and psychological well-being: The

mediating role of meaningful work. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, [e-journal]

12(3), pp.193–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-

8998.12.3.193

Bakker, A. B. and Oerlemans, W. G. M., 2011.

Subjective well-being in organizations. In G. M.

Spreitzer K. S. Cameron (Eds.), The Oxford

Handbook of Positive Organizational

Scholarship. Oxford University Press.

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/978019973461

0.013.0014

Bendassolli, P. F., Borges-Andrade, J. E. and Alves,

Regression Model for Work Engagement of Millennial Generation Workforce

511

J. S. C., Torres, T., 2015. Meaningful Work

Scale in creative industries: A confirmatory

factor analysis. Psico-USF, [e-journal] 20(1),

pp.1–12. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-

82712015200101

Blustein, D. L., 2008. The role of work in

psychological health and well-being: A

conceptual, historical, and public policy

perspective. American Psychologist, [e-journal]

63(4), pp.228–240. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-

066X.63.4.228

Cable, D. M. and DeRue, D. S., 2002. The

convergent and discriminant validity of

subjective fit perceptions. Journal of Applied

Psychology, [e-journal] 87(5), pp.875–884.

https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.5.875

Cable, D. M. and Judge, T. A., 1996. Person-

organization fit, job choice, and organization

entry. Organizational Behavior and Human

Decision Processes, [e-journal] 67(3), pp.204–

213. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0081

Cai, D., Cai, Y., Sun, Y. and Ma, J. 2018. Linking

empowering leadership and employee work

engagement: The effects of person-job fit,

person-group fit, and proactive personality.

Frontiers in Psychology, [e-journal] 9, 1304.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01304

Chalofsky, N., 2003. An emerging construct for

meaningful work. Human Resource Development

International, [e-journal] 6(1), pp.69–83.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1367886022000016785

Chawla, D., Dokadia, A. and Rai, S., 2017.

Multigenerational differences in career

preferences, reward preferences and work

engagement among Indian employees. Global

Business Review, [e-journal] 18(1), pp.181–197.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150916666964

Christian, M. S. and Slaughter, J., 2011. Work

engagement: A meta-analytic review and

directions for research in an emerging area.

Personnel Psychology, [e-journal] 64, pp.89–

136.

https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2007.26536346

Chuang, A., Shen, C. T. and Judge, T. A., 2016.

Development of a multidimensional instrument

of person-environment fit: The Perceived

Person-Environment Fit Scale (PPEFS). Applied

Psychology, [e-journal] 65(1), pp.66–98.

https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12036

Dalal, R. S., Baysinger, M., Brummel, B. J. and

Lebreton, J. M., 2012. The relative importance of

employee engagement, other job attitudes, and

trait affect as predictors of job performance.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, [e-

journal] 42 (SUPPL. 1), pp.295–325.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-

1816.2012.01017.x

De Beer, L. T., Rothmann, S. and Mostert, K.,

2016. The bidirectional relationship between

person-job fit and work engagement. Journal of

Personnel Psychology, [e-journal] 15(1), pp.4–

14. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000143

De Beer, L. T., Tims, M. and Bakker, A. B., 2016.

Job crafting and its impact on work engagement

and job satisfaction in mining and

manufacturing. SAJEMS NS, 19(3), pp.400–412.

https://doi.org/10.17159/2222-

3436/2016/v19n3a7

Edwards, J. R., 1991. Person-job fit: A conceptual

integration, literature review, and methodological

critique. International Review of Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, 1991, Vol. 6.

Edwards, J. R. and Shipp, A. J., 2007. Relationship

between person-environment fit and outcomes:

An integrative theoretical framework. In C.

Ostroff T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspective on

organizational fit (pp. 209–258). Jossey-Bass.

http://public.kenan-

flagler.unc.edu/faculty/edwardsj/edwardsshipp20

07.pdf

Enwereuzor, I. K., Ugwu, L. I. and Eze, O. A. 2016.

How transformational leadership influences work

engagement among nurses: Does person–job fit

matter? Western Journal of Nursing Research,

[e-journal] 40(3), pp.346–366.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916682449

Evaluagent. (n.d.). Cx and the fourth industrial

revolution: A manifesto for implementing

workforce engagement management to meet the

challenges faced by the 21st-century contact

centre. Available at:

<https://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/755928/docume

nts/Implementing Workforce Engagement

Management by EvaluAgent.pdf> [acceessed 21

May 2018]

Gordon, H. J., Demerouti, E., Le Blanc, P. M.,

Bakker, A. B., Bipp, T. and Verhagen, M. A. M.

T., 2018. Individual job redesign: Job crafting

interventions in healthcare. Journal of

Vocational Behavior, [e-journal] 104, pp.98–114.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.07.002

Hayes, A. F., 2013. Introduction to Mediation,

Moderation, and Conditional Process

Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New

York, NY: The Guilford Press, doi:

10.1111/jedm.12050

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D. and Morgeson, F.

P., 2007. Integrating motivational, social, and

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

512

contextual work design features: A meta-analytic

summary and theoretical extension of the work

design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology,

[e-journal] 92(5), pp.1332–1356.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332

Kahn, W. A., 1990. Psychological conditions of

personal engagement and disengagement at

work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4),

pp.692–724. Available at:

<https://engagementresearch.wikispaces.com/file

/view/Kahn+(1990)_Psychological+conditions+o

f+personal+engagement+and+disengagement+at

+work.pdf> [Accessed 17 June 2018)

Kahn, W. and Heapy, E.D. 2014. Relational

contexts of personal engagement at work. In C.

Truss, R. Delbridge, E. Soane, K. Alfes, A.

Shantz (eds.) Employee engagement in theory

and practice (pp. 163- 179). Abingdon:

Routledge.

Kim, W., Kolb, J. A. and Kim, T., 2012. The

relationship between work engagement and

performance: A review of empirical literature

and a proposed research agenda. Human

Resource Development Review, 12(3), pp.248–

276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312461635

Kira, M. and Balkin, D. B., 2014. Interactions

between work and identities: Thriving,

withering, or redefining the self? Human

Resource Management Review, 24(2), pp.131–

143.

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.HRMR.2013.10.001

Kristof-brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D. and

Johson, H. B., 2005. Consequences of

individuals’ fit at work: A meta-analysis of

person-job, person-organization, person-group,

and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology,

58, 281–342. Available at:

<http://www.psychologie.uni-

mannheim.de/cip/tut/seminare_wittmann/meta_fr

ibourg/sources/Meta_person_job_fit.pdf>

[Accessed 3 February 2018]

Kristof, A. L., 1996. Person-organization fit: An

integrative review of its conceptualizations,

measurement, and implications. Personnel

Psychology, 49(1), pp.1–49.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-

6570.1996.tb01790.x

Lee, S., 2015. A concept analysis of “meaning in

work” and its implications for nursing. Journal

of Advanced Nursing, [e-journal] 71(10),

pp.2258–2267. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12695

Lewis, P. N. and Yeoman, R., 2016. Busting the

millennial myth - the power of purpose: An

inquiry into the millennial generation’s attitude

towards working in employee-owned businesses

and how they can prosper in millennials’ hands.

Available at:

<http://www.fieldfisher.com/media/4948679/eo-

millennia_web.pdf> [accessed 3 March 2018]

Lips-Wiersma, M., 2002. The influence of spiritual

“meaning-making” on career behavior. Journal

of Management Development, [e-journal] 21(7),

pp.497–520.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710210434638

Lips-Wiersma, M. and Wright, S., 2012. Measuring

the meaning of meaningful work: Development

and validation of the Comprehensive Meaningful

Work Scale (CMWS). Group and Organization

Management, [e-journal] 37(5), pp.655–685.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112461578

Lu, C., Wang, H.-J., Lu, J., Du, D. and Bakker, A.

B., 2014. Does work engagement increase

person-job fit? The role of job crafting and job

insecurity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84,

[e-journal] pp.142–152.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.12.004

Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. and Diener, E., 2005.

The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does

happiness lead to success? Psychology Bulletin,

131(6), pp.803–855.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803

Maslach, C. and Leiter, M. P., 2008. Early

predictors of job burnout and engagement.

Journal of Applied Psychology, [e-journal] 93(3),

pp.498–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.93.3.498

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L. and Harter, L. M., 2004.

The psychological conditions of meaningfulness,

safety and availability and the engagement of the

human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational

and Organizational Psychology, [e-journal] 77,

11–37. Available at: www.bps.org.uk

Muslim, M., Suhariadi. F., Damayanti, N.A. and

Purnomo, W., 2018. The performance of medical

laboratory technician based on situation

awareness and psychological capital with the

work engagement mediation. Indian Journal of

Public Health Research and Development. [e-

journal] 9(1), pp. 199-202

Nielsen, K., 2013. How can we make organizational

interventions work? Employees and line

managers as actively crafting interventions.

Human Relations, 66(8), pp.1029–1050.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713477164

Preacher, K. J., and Hayes, A. F., 2008.

Asymptotic and resampling strategies for

assessing and comparing indirect effects in

multiple mediator models. Behav. Res.

Regression Model for Work Engagement of Millennial Generation Workforce

513

Methods 40, pp.879–891. doi:

10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Purboarum. R. and Riyono.B., 2016. The Role of

Quality of life on work engagement and work

satisfaction, Perpustakaan Pusat Universitas

Gadjah Mada Jogjakarta, Thesis

Rigoni, B. and Nelson, B., 2016. Few millennials

are engaged at work. Available at:

<http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/195209/

few-millennials-engaged-

work.aspx?version=print> [Accessed 22 January

2018]

Robertson, I. T., Birch, A. J. and Cooper, C. L.,

2012. Job and work attitudes, engagement and

employee performance: Where does

psychological well-being fit in? Leadership

Organization Development Journal, [e-journal]

33(3), pp.224–232.

https://doi.org/10.1108/01437731211216443

Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H. and Wrzesniewski, A.,

2010. On the meaning of work : A theoretical

integration and review. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 30, pp.91–127.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001

Rothmann, S. and Buys, C. 2011. Job demands and

resources, psychological conditions, religious

coping and work engagement of reformed church

ministers. Journal of Psychology in Africa, [e-

journal] 21(2), pp.173–185.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2011.1082044

Rothmann, S. and Rothmann Jr, S. 2010. Factors

associated with employee engagement in South

Africa. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, [e-

journal] 36(2), pp.1–12.

https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.925

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B. and Salanova, M.,

2006. The measurement of work engagement

with a short questionnaire: A cross-national

study. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 66(4), pp.701–716.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471

Scroggins, W. A., 2008. The relationship between

employee fit perceptions, job performance, and

retention: Implications of perceived fit.

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,

[e-journal] 20(1), pp.57–71.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-007-9060-0

Septiyani, R. and Himam, F., 2013, The

Relationship Between Emotional Labour and

Work Engagement with organizational Support

as Moderator, Perpustakaan Pusat Universitas

Gadjah Mada Jogjakarta, Thesis

Shamir, B. 1991. Meaning, self, and motivations in

organizations. Organization Studies, 12(3),

pp.405–424.

Shuck, B., Reio, T. G. and Rocco, T. S., 2011.

Employee engagement: An examination of

antecedent and outcome variables. Human

Resource Development International, 14(4),

pp.427–445.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.601587

Singh, S. P. and Karki, J., 2015. The impact of job

engagement and organizational commitment on

organisational performance. The International

Journal of Business Management, 3(5), 3(4),

pp.279-285. https://doi.org/10.12691/jbms-3-5-1

Steger, M. F., Dik, B. J. and Duffy, R. D., 2012.

Measuring meaningful work: The work and

meaning inventory (WAMI). Journal of Career

Assessment, pp.1–16.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072711436160

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B. and Derks, D., 2015. Job

crafting and job performance: A longitudinal

study. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, [e-journal] 24(6),

pp.914–928.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2014.969245

Utomo, G., Riyono, B. and Budiharto, S., 2017.

Effectivity of Management by Objectives

Program on Employees’ Work Engagement at

Ice Cream Company in Jogjakarta, Jurnal Ilmiah

Psikologi Terapan, 5 (3), pp.210-225.

https://doi.org/10.22219/jipt.v5i2.4562

Van Den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte,

H. and Lens, W., 2008. Explaining the

relationships between job characteristics,

burnout, and engagement: The role of basic

psychological need satisfaction. Work and Stress,

22 (3), pp.277–294.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370802393672

Waite, S., 2018. The Fourth Industrial Revolution

and the Future of Work. - RevUnit. Available at:

<http://blog.revunit.com/fourth-industrial-

revolution-future-work/> [Accessed 12

December 2017]

Widhiharso, W., 2010. Berkenalan dengan analisis

mediasi : Regresi dengan melibatkan variabel

mediator (bagian pertama). Available at:

<http://widhiarso.staff.ugm.ac.id/wp/berkenalan-

dengan-analisis-mediasi-regresi-dengan-

melibatkan-variabel-mediator-bagian-

pertama/comment-page-1/> (Accessed 5 March

2018]

Wrzesniewski, A., Mccauley, C., Rozin, P. and

Schwartz, B., 1997. Jobs, careers, and callings:

People’s relations to their work. Journal of

Research in Personality, 31, pp.21–33, [Online]

ICP-HESOS 2018 - International Conference on Psychology in Health, Educational, Social, and Organizational Settings

514

Available at:

<http://faculty.som.yale.edu/amywrzesniewski/d

ocuments/Jobscareersandcallings.pdf> [Accessed

11 November 2017]

Yongxing, G., Hongfei, D., Baoguo, X. and Lei, M.,

2017. Work engagement and job performance:

the moderating role of perceived organizational

support. Anales de Psicología, 33(3), pp.708-

718.

https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.238571

Regression Model for Work Engagement of Millennial Generation Workforce

515