Abstract

The current study looked at the relationship between secondary school teachers' job performance and their work engagement in the Punjab province. Correlation research was the method of choice for this investigation. The participants in the study were secondary school instructors. The sample for the study was selected using a multi-stage random sampling technique. The sample included 314 secondary school teachers. There were two closed-ended questions used in the study. To confirm the accuracy and dependability of the research tools, a pilot study was carried out. "Pearson r, independent sample t-test, one way ANOVA, post hoc Tukey, and linear regression" were used for data analysis. The results of the study showed a significant connection between teachers' job performance and their work engagement. Men and women in teaching exhibit considerably different work levels engagement and job performance. The results showed that depending on their prior teaching experience, teachers' degrees of work engagement varied substantially. The study's conclusions showed that work engagement had a favorable effect on teachers' ability to do their jobs. Therefore, it is advised that teachers engage in their work in order to carry out their responsibilities in a classroom setting effectively.

Key Words

Work Engagement, Job Performance, Secondary School Teachers

Introduction

Teachers work engagement (WE) can have a variety of implications, such as performance implications, personal and socio-emotional implications, and motivational implications (Schweitzer, 2014). Actively participating teachers are more likely to perform well than those who are not. They are more productive at work and don't overlook their personal lives. According to Kahn (1990), motivated teachers appear to have a social connection with their coworkers, are intellectually prepared to contribute, are present and active, and like exercising their individuality at work.

Personal engagement was characterized by Kahn (1990) as the organization's members using their own time to carry out their duties. Through role playing, participants in the encounter interact and physically, mentally, and emotionally express themselves. According to Kahn (1990), employee involvement is a reflection of their psychological presence. The degree to which individuals are aware, connected, involved, and focused on performing their duty is referred to as psychological presence.

According to Rothbard (2001), work engagement (WE) is a favourable, contenting, employment-related, ongoing, and pervasive mental state. It doesn't focus on any specific thing, person, thing, event, or attitude. Terms like "work engagement" and "employee engagement" are interchangeable (Saufeli 2010) Work engagement was defined by Schaufeli et al. (2002) as a favourable, fulfilling mentality associated to work that is marked by vigour (e.g., energetic), dedication (e.g., high job participation), and absorption (e.g., high concentration at work). According to Saks (2006), work engagement is the psychological commitment a person has to their job.

According to Shuck and Wollard (2010), teachers' involvement is characterised as a cognitive, emotional, and behavioural state directed toward desirable institutional objectives. Work engagement, according to Christian et al. (2011), is the imaginative use of one's own resources to complete work. According to Myrden and Kelloway (2015), employee engagement refers to a worker's drive, excitement, and responsibility toward their job, as well as their desire to contribute and expand their side projects in order to help the organization flourish.

Job performance is defined as the amount of advancement a person makes as a result of his efforts. It is the result of the efforts of one individual worker. It makes reference to how well someone does at work. Performance is a crucial concern for a person, an organization, and a nation. Low levels of performance lead to the failure of the organization to meet its goals, which is perceived as a personal letdown. In reality, achieving positions via unquestionable performance is a source of fulfillment for an individual, and achieving the organization's objectives and creating for the nation eventually produces feelings of authority and self-righteousness. Obilade (1999) claimed that the tasks performed by a teacher at a specific point in the educational system to accomplish organizational goals can be referred to as their work execution. It is conceivable that it can be characterized as teachers' capacity to combine significant contributions for the enhancement of the teaching and learning process, according to Okeniyi (1995). The performance of teachers is influenced by numerous factors. A good teacher must not only manage time and other responsibilities assigned to him or her outside of teaching, such as supervising ethics and discipline in the classroom, motivating students, and ensuring managing interaction with students in the classroom scenario positively, but also teach in such a way that he or she can fulfill the class with his or her effective teaching style.

Literature Review

As defined by enthusiasm, dedication, and absorption, work engagement is a positive, gratifying attitude toward work (Carmona-Halty et al., 2019; Lisbona et al., 2018). Perhaps commitment refers to a longer-lasting and inevitable emotional intellectual status that isn't precisely focused on anything, occasion, person, or conduct, as opposed to being a brief and explicit state. Work engagement was operationalized using three unique business-related concepts: power, dedication, and absorption. The ability to work with undeniable levels of physical and mental stamina, the desire to put effort into one's work, and creativity even in the face of obstacles are the characteristics of vigour. Work engagement and dedication are demonstrated by a sense of importance, passion, drive, pride, and challenge. Being wholly engaged and pleasantly engaged in one's task, when time goes quickly and one finds it impossible to detach from it, is the final definition of absorption. Individually, the centre burnout measurements of fatigue and criticism see life and dedication as utterly opposed energies (Maslach et al., 2001). Logic writing (Alonderiene & Majauskaite, 2016; Cassidy et al., 2017; Van den Broeck et al., 2016; Vangrieken et al., 2017) and the defensive job of fulfillment in relation to instructor burnout have both shown the impact of job satisfaction and teachers' independence on WE (Fiorilli et al., 2015, 2017a).

Engagement at work may provide any organization a competitive edge (Bakker et al., 2008). Most significantly, managers that are focused on attracting and retaining a skilled workforce may benefit from positive results, such as improved specialty strong financial results, unit performance, and a favorable company reputation (Duran et al., 2010). Additionally, the level of involvement at work among coworkers could have a big impact on how well a business performs (Bakker et al., 2008). Given these benefits, firms may want to develop efforts that increase participation as they could lead to greater maintenance and performance (Demerouti & Cropanzano, 2010; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008). A variety of career-related outcomes, such as on-the-job performance, off-the-job performance, and dynamic learning, are predicted by work engagement (Bakker et al., 2012; Christian et al., 2011; Dalal et al., 2012; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008).

Bakker and Bal (2010) found that work engagement was closely associated to both on-the-job and off-the-job performance in their research of 54 Dutch instructors. It was also demonstrated that the relationship between work assets and both on-the-job and off-the-job performance was superseded by work engagement, demonstrating that instructors who were given the freedom to choose their own work options and areas for improvement were more engaged and, as a result, displayed notable levels of professional performance. These results show that when provided job-related resources like freedom, employees are more engaged at work, which improves their performance on tasks they are allocated as well as their willingness to go above and beyond their obligations and engage in activities that are advantageous to the business (i.e., extra-job practices). Similar results by Xanthopoulou et al. demonstrated the significance of job assets to work engagement and subsequently performance (2008). Using a sample of 44 airline employees, they discovered that associate help and self-efficacy were both related to work performance through work engagement. This research emphasises how important partner support is for representatives to succeed in their professional endeavours and deliver quality work. 

Teachers’ WE play a vital role in their performance in the school settings. Teachers WE has positive links with their excellent job performance which proposes that drew in instructors show a superior professional performance (Xanthopoulou et al., 2008). Job performance comprises of two dimensions specifically in-job performance and extra-job execution (Shirom et al., 2008). Until this point in time, a couple of studies have inspected the positive connection among WE and job performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008). An extensive review of word-related situations in the Netherlands has revealed that WE is unmistakably associated with on-the-job performance (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Empirical studies discovered a positive correlation between WE and job performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007; Schaufeli & Taris, 2014).

Llorens et al. (2007) said that engagement had a positive additive winding that could be relied upon to encourage longer-term further development of performance. When employees are trapped, they devote their physical, passionate, and intellectual efforts to their tasks (Llorens et al., 2007). Workers should perform better as a result of their focus and heightened worry for liabilities (Rich et al., 2010). Additionally, they work on their homework for a longer period of time than other students do and put in more effort (Rich et al., 2010). Given these results, it is expected that WE is highly related to the performance of work, which is consistent with other engagement investigations (Bakker et al., Taris, 2008; Halbesleben & Wheeler, 2008). Work engagement showed a favorable relationship with performance, according to a study from a wide range of workplace contexts in the Netherlands (Schaufeli et al., 2006).

Bakker and Ball (2010) came to the conclusion that the performance of weekly teachers was favourably correlated with their work engagement. A principal's leadership style and job performance have a positive and significant link, according to a study by Baker et al. (2006) that looked at 105 school administrators' and 232 teachers' engagement and performance. Workers who are drawn in perform better than workers who are not connected, claim Bakker et al. (2008). The primary emotions felt by engaged employees are joy, satisfaction, and vitality, among others. They also see improvements in their physical and emotional health. Thirdly, after concentrating on their own work and personal assets, engaged workers turn their attention to others.

According to Saks (2006), highly engaged employees significantly help their managers and can foresee an organization's success. Organizational performance indicators like worker happiness, productivity, organizational commitment, and safety have been found to benefit from employee engagement. A higher degree of engagement and creativity, according to Gallup, are closely related. A dedicated instructor will exhibit a high level of interest and dedication in their line of work. Teaching is more about promise than obedience in his eyes. To give pupils high-quality instruction, teachers in the higher education sector must be completely engaged. Therefore, the level of teacher engagement is a crucial factor for all higher education institutions.

Gupta et al. (2015) looked into how work engagement affected the effectiveness of India's higher education systems. 260 universities chosen from among those in India were surveyed and asked to rank their own levels of support, autonomy, and participation. They discovered that the association between productivity and work resources was considerably mediated by job engagement.

Numerous empirical research have found (Bakker, 2011; Laschinger & Finegan, 2005; Mokaya & Gitari, 2012; ahin & Çankr, 2018; Upadyaya et al., 2016) that work involvement improves working performance. In 2020, Yanc and Dal conducted research in Turkey. They looked at how demographic factors affected how engaged instructors were at work. 514 public school instructors were included in the sample of the study. The level of work involvement between male and female teachers, according to them, was the same. Additionally, they mentioned that single and married teachers’ perceptions on work engagement varied. Topaloglu et al. (2019) also discovered that female employees of banking were having high mean scores in vigor and dedication than male.

Agbionu et al. (2018) carried out research in the context of Nigeria. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the relationship between lecturers' workplace engagement and higher levels of job performance. 314 lecturers were included in the study's sample. They discovered a strong and positive relationship between lecturers' level of work engagement and their job performance.

Sittar (2020) discovered a connection between university-level instructors' job performance and their work engagement in a Pakistani context. 400 university professors made up the study's sample. The findings showed that there was no statistically significant gender difference among teachers. Teachers were having different significant difference on the bases qualifications of teachers work engagement. The studys findings also revealed that teachers with different qualifications performed equally well on the job.

Investigators have also looked into how gender and experience affect teachers' commitment to their jobs. For instance, Schweitzer's (2014) research discovered that more experienced teachers are more involved at work, and that female teachers are more engaged than male instructors. Kilonzo et al. (2018) found that work engagement had a substantial impact on teacher performance in secondary schools in Machakos County in their study on the "Impact of Employee Engagement on Teacher Performance in Secondary Schools in Machakos County", which was conducted in Kenya. The report recommends that decision-making at the school level engage instructors.

Objectives of the Study

The study's research objectives were as follows: To

1. Determine the relationship between 

work engagement and job performance among secondary school teachers.

2. Compare differences in secondary teachers work engagement and job performance regarding gender and teaching experience.

3. Investigate the impact of teachers work engagement on their job performance.




Research Questions

The following were the research questions of the study:

1. What is the relationship between work engagement and job performance among secondary school teachers?

2. Is there a gender or teaching experience difference in teachers work engagement and job performance at the secondary level?

3. What is the effect of teachers work engagement on their job performance at secondary level?

Conceptual Model of the Study



Methods and Procedures

Research Design

The study was carried out using the positivist paradigm (Kumatongo & Muzata, 2021; Phillips et al., 2000). The current investigation was quantitative, descriptive-correlational, and non-experimental in character.







Population and Sampling Procedure

The word population refers to all survey participants in the group from whom the study's desired sample is drawn (Hutchings, 2021; Wallen & Fraenkel, 2013). All secondary school teachers in the Lahore division made up the study's population. On an administrative basis, the Lahore division was split into four districts. A sample that is representative of the entire population was chosen (Charles, 1998; Lodico et al., 2010). Therefore, the study's sample was selected using a multi-stage random selection technique. Out of the four districts in the Lahore division, two were randomly selected for the first phase. Districts like Kasur and Sheikhupura were picked. Twenty-five male and twenty-five female secondary schools were randomly selected for the second stage. The sample was chosen using the census strategy at the third stage. 314 secondary school teachers were included in the sample; they were chosen at random from two districts in the Lahore division.




Research Instruments 

To collect the data from selected respondents, two closed-ended questionnaires were used. Both research tools were applied in the context of Pakistan (Siddique et al., 2020; Siddique & Rana, 2021). In order to first examine teachers' levels of WE, Schaufeli and Bakker developed the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) in (2004). The Likert scale included five points. It contains three sub-variables, “vigor, dedication, and absorption”. The UWES had an alpha value of 0.87. Secondly, in order to gather the data, the job performance scale for instructors was used. Amin and colleagues developed this scale (2013). It has six factors, including: “student-teacher relationship, facilitative classroom environment, content and pedagogical knowledge, class room management, punctuality and regularity, and teaching assessment skills”. The Cronbach alpha value was .94.Data were gathered by direct postal correspondence and on-site visits to the schools. Inferential statistical methods, such as the “Pearson r, independent sample t-test, one-way analysis of variance, Post-hoc Tukey, and linear regression”, were used to analyze the data.

Data Analysis and Interpretations

Table 1. Correlation between Teachers Work Engagement and Job Performance

Variables	n	r-value	Sig.
Work Engagement and Job Performance	314	.895**	.001

** p< .001 (2-tailed)

 




Table 1 revealed the association between teachers work engagement and job performance. Teachers WE and JP were shown to have a substantial and positive connection

(r =.895**, n = 314, p< .001).




 

Table 2. Relationship of Work Engagement Factors with Job Performance

Factors	1	2	3	4
Vigor	1	.801**	.660**	.797**
Dedication		1	.721**	.862**
Absorption			1	.779**
Job Performance				1

** p< .001 (2-tailed), n = 314

 




Table 2 showed the association between secondary school teachers WE and JP. A positive significant link between job performance and the sub-variables of teachers WE, such as vigor (r =.797**), dedication (r =.862**), and absorption (r =.779**), was found. It was concluded that all WE sub-variables significantly and positively correlated with teachers job performance.




Table 3. Teachers Differences in Work Engagement and Job Performance: Gender Wise

Variables	Gender	N	Mean	SD	t	Df	P
Work Engagement	Male	160	70.2688	10.52922	2.133	302.079	.001
	Female	154	67.5260	12.16348
Job Performance	Male	160	129.6313	19.07932	2.429	299.828	.001
	Female	154	123.9026	22.50571

 




Table 3 revealed a comparison of mean scores for teachers WE and JP based on gender. It was determined that teachers WE and JP differed significantly at p =.05. The table also stated that male teachers had higher means cores of WE and JP than female teachers.




 

Table 4. Teachers Differences in Factors of Work Engagement and Job Performance: Gender Wise

Sub-variables of WE and JP	Gender	N	Mean	SD	T	Df	P
Vigor	Male	160	24.5813	3.69850	1.411	299.494	.004
	Female	154	23.9351	4.37562
Dedication	Male	160	20.7438	3.12677	1.912	289.614	.001
	Female	154	19.9675	3.99742
Absorption	Male	160	24.9438	5.25363	2.352	312	.189
	Female	154	23.6234	4.66117
Student-Teacher Relationship	Male	160	25.2000	3.74636	2.432	291.361	.001
	Female	154	24.0260	4.72920
Facilitative Classroom Environment	Male	160	21.0438	3.61400	2.669	312	.059
	Female	154	19.9091	3.91806
Content & Pedagogical Knowledge	Male	160	32.8938	5.05765	2.202	301.947	.008
	Female	154	31.5325	5.85016
Classroom Management	Male	160	16.8875	2.59411	2.751	283.422	.001
	Female	154	15.9351	3.46160
Punctuality & Regularity	Male	160	17.0375	2.89195	1.445	312	.123
	Female	154	16.5519	3.06155
Teaching Assessment Skills	Male	160	20.8438	3.64726	1.627	303.157	.006
	Female	154	20.1234	4.16855

 




Table 4 indicated the gender differences in mean scores of teachers work engagement and job performance. It was determined that only two sub-variables of work engagement, such as vigor and dedication, differed significantly from the other three factors. The findings also revealed that, of the six job performance factors examined, the student-teacher relationship, content and pedagogical knowledge, class room management, and teaching assessment skills had a significant gender difference at p =.05.




 

Table 5. Comparisons of Teachers WE and JP Regarding Teaching Experience

Work Engagement and Job Performance		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Work Engagement	Between Groups	1513.280	5	302.656	2.369	.039
	Within Groups	39340.885	308	127.730
	Total	40854.166	313
Job Performance	Between Groups	4773.859	5	954.772	2.208	.053
	Within Groups	133176.154	308	432.390
	Total	137950.013	313

 




A one-way ANOVA was used in table 5 to compare the mean scores of WE and JP regarding their teaching experiences. It was discovered that teachers levels of work engagement varied significantly. The table also demonstrated that teachers mean scores of JP did not differ based on their teaching experience.   




 

Table 6. Differences in WE and JP Factors Regarding Teachers Teaching Experience

Sub-scales of Work Engagement and Job Performance		Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Vigor	Between Groups	126.760	5	25.352	1.558	.172
	Within Groups	5010.300	308	16.267
	Total	5137.061	313
Dedication	Between Groups	155.062	5	31.012	2.455	.034
	Within Groups	3891.549	308	12.635
	Total	4046.611	313
Absorption	Between Groups	284.274	5	56.855	2.315	.044
	Within Groups	7565.182	308	24.562
	Total	7849.455	313
Student-Teacher Relationship	Between Groups	206.422	5	41.284	2.289	.046
	Within Groups	5555.234	308	18.036
	Total	5761.656	313
Facilitative Classroom Environment	Between Groups	102.715	5	20.543	1.430	.213
	Within Groups	4423.734	308	14.363
	Total	4526.449	313
Content & Pedagogical Knowledge	Between Groups	240.533	5	48.107	1.609	.157
	Within Groups	9208.413	308	29.897
	Total	9448.946	313
Classroom Management	Between Groups	106.768	5	21.354	2.293	.046
	Within Groups	2867.741	308	9.311
	Total	2974.510	313
Punctuality & Regularity	Between Groups	129.619	5	25.924	3.010	.011
	Within Groups	2652.741	308	8.613
	Total	2782.360	313
Teaching Assessment Skills	Between Groups	153.298	5	30.660	2.026	.075
	Within Groups	4661.174	308	15.134
	Total	4814.471	313

 




Table 6 displayed the findings of a one-way ANOVA on the factors of teachers WE and JP in relation to their teaching experience. Only two of the three work engagement factors, dedication and absorption, were found to have a significant difference. The findings also revealed that only two factors, “student-teacher relationship and punctuality and regularity”, out of six job performance factors based on years of experience, had a significant difference.




 

Table 6 (a). Post-hoc Comparison of Teachers JP based on Teaching Experience

Dependent Variable	(I) Teaching Experience	(J) Teaching Experience	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.
Student-Teacher Relationship	11-15	01-05	-.63511	.80375	.969
		06-10	-.67554	.70986	.933
		16-20	-1.47554	.90611	.580
		21-25	-2.03499	.94209	.260
		More than 25	-2.41205*	.84054	.050
	More than 25	01-05	1.77694	.86088	.309
		06-10	1.73651	.77396	.221
		11-15	2.41205*	.84054	.050
		16-20	.93651	.95715	.925
		21-25	.37706	.99128	.999
Class Room Management	11-15	01-05	-.63511	.57748	.881
		06-10	-.68653	.51003	.759
		16-20	-.76126	.65103	.851
		21-25	-1.64790	.67688	.148
		More than 25	-1.78983*	.60392	.038
	More than 25	01-05	1.15472	.61853	.425
		06-10	1.10330	.55608	.354
		11-15	1.78983*	.60392	.038
		16-20	1.02857	.68770	.667
		21-25	.14194	.71222	1.000

 




In Table 6(a), the Post Hoc Tukey results were highlighted, showing that there were significant differences in the student-teacher relationship (p (.050, .050) 0.05) and classroom management (p (.038, .038) 0.05) between the various groups of their teachers teaching experience (11-15 vs. more than 25 and more than 25 vs. 11-15, respectively). It was found that there were significant differences in the job performance of teachers throughout different groups of their teaching years based on the teaching experience.




 

Table 7.  Regression Analysis to Identify the Predictive Power of WE and JP

Model	R	R Square	Adjusted R Square	Std. Error of the Estimate
1	.895a	.801	.801	9.37107

a. Predictors: (Constant), Work Engagement

 

Table 7 (a). ANOVA to Determine the Significance Level of the Predictive Power of WE to Assess JP

Model		Sum of Squares	Df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
1	Regression	110551.134	1	110551.134	1258.882	.000
	Residual	27398.878	312	87.817
	Total	137950.013	313

a. Predictors: (Constant), Work Engagement

b. Dependent Variable: Job Performance

 

Table 8 (b). Coefficients Model to fix the Predictive Power of WE for JP

Model		Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	T	Sig.
		B	Std. Error	Beta	B	Std. Error
1	(Constant)	13.443	3.239		4.150	.000
	Work Engagement	1.645	.046	.895	35.481	.000

a. Dependent Variable: Job Performance

 




To investigate the effect of WE on JP, regression analysis was used. The outcomes demonstrated that WE had a power of practicability of JP. According to the data (R²value 0.80, ? =.89), the contribution to explaining the variance in JP was statistically significant.

Discussion

This section of the current study displayed the findings of the descriptive-correlational study's data collection. An association between teachers' job performance and their work engagement was discovered through quantitative analysis. The impact of WE on JP was also determined using linear regression. The initial aim of this study was to investigate the friendship between WE and JP. The results revealed a strong and substantial connection between WE and JP. The results also showed that there was a significant and positive association between WE and JP-related parameters. The outcomes of numerous empirical research support the findings of the current study (Agbionu et al. 2018; Bakker, 2011; Laschinger & Finegan, 2005; Mokaya & Gitari, 2012; ahin & Çankr, 2018; Sittar, 2020; Upadyaya et al., 2016; Yanc & Dal, 2020). A significant and favourable association between WE and JP was found in all of these empirical researches.

The second research goal was to examine the significant differences in gender and teaching experience between WE and JP. The independent sample t-test was used to assess the gender-related data bases collected from the teachers. The research results showed that teachers' WE and JP varied significantly by gender. The mean scores of male teachers were higher than those of female teachers. These results were at odds with those of earlier research conducted by Sittar and Schweitzer (2014). (2020). Vigor and devotion were the only two WE variables that significantly varied. The results also showed significant gender differences in JP factors like the student-teacher relationship, content and pedagogical knowledge, classroom management, and teaching assessment skills. Regarding their teaching experience, teachers' WE scores significantly varied.

These findings are consistent with Schweitzers previous research findings (2014). WE factors such as dedication and absorption differed significantly between teachers. The findings also revealed that teachers JP did not differ based on their teaching experience. Significant difference was found in sub-scales of JP such as student-teacher relationship and punctuality and regularity with regard to their JP.  

Finally, the effect of WE on JP was examined trough regression analysis. The results showed that WE significantly and positively affected JP. The outcomes were in line with those studies results of Gupta et al. (2015) and Saks (2006). The results revealed that WE had positive effect on JP at secondary school level. 

Conclusion

Job satisfaction, excellent job performance, commitment and other job related outcomes are all influenced by WE in school settings. Engaged teachers perform their duties in the classroom scenario effectively. They are vigorous, dedicated and having absorption towards their JP. The current study's objective was to assess WE and JP's partnership. The results revealed a large, strong, and favourable correlation between WE and JP. The study also looked at the differences between WE and JP in terms of their gender and teaching backgrounds. There were noticeable discrepancies between male and female teachers in WE and JP. The results demonstrated that teachers' WE changed according to their length of teaching experience. The findings also demonstrated that teachers' JP did not differ in accordance with their years of experience as teachers. Finally, the results showed that at the secondary school level, teachers' WE had a beneficial impact on their JP. Teachers should have work engagement in order to enhance job performance. 

Recommendations

The numerous ways in which work engagement might contribute to job performance should be thoroughly considered in future studies. The scope of this research was limited to the Lahore division. Futureresearchs could focus on the entire Punjab Province. Future studies may also take into account additional variables that affect work engagement, such as job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and so on. Other restrictions apply to the study, such as the use of SSTs from the public sector. Future research may validate the findings using SSTs from the private sector or a different sample.

References

• Agbionu, U. C., Anyalor, M., & wali, A. C. (2018). Employee engagement and performance of lecturers in Nigerian tertiary institutions. Journal of Education & Entrepreneurship, 5(2), 69-87
• Alonderiene, R., & Majauskaite, M. (2016). Leadership style and job satisfaction in higher education institutions. International Journal Educational Management, 30, 140–164.
• Amin, M., Shah, R., Ayaz, M., & Atta, M. A. (2013). Teachers job performance at secondary level in Khyber Pakhyun khawa, Pakistan. Gomal University Journal of Research, 29(2), 32-38
• Bakker, A. B. (2011). An evidence-based model of work engagement. Current Directionsn Psychological Science, 20(4), 265-269.
• Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(1), 189-206.
• Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career development international, 13(3), 209-223.
• Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & ten- Brummelhuis, L. L. (2012). Work engagement, performance, and active learning: The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), 555-564.
• Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology, Work and Stress, 22, 187–200
• Carmona-Halty, M. A., Schaufeli, W. B., & Salanova, M. (2019). The Utrecht work engagement scale for students (UWES– 9S): factorial validity, reliability, and measurement invariance in a chilean sample of undergraduate university students. Frontier Psychology, 10, 1017.
• Cassidy, D. J., King, E. K., Wang, Y. C., Lower, J. K., & Kintner-Duffy, V. L. (2017). Teacher work environments are toddler learning environments: teacher professional well-being, classroom emotional support, and toddlers emotional expressions and behaviours. Early Child Development Care, 187, 1666–1678
• Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work engagement: A quantitative review and test of its relations with task and contextual performance. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 89–136.
• Dalal, R. S., Baysinger, M., Brummel, B. J., & 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, 42(Suppl1), 295-325.
• Demerouti, E., & Cropanzano, R. (2010). From thought to action: Employee work engagement and job performance. In A. B. Bakker (Ed.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 147-163). Psychology Press.
• Duran, M., Extremera, N., & Rey, L. (2010). Analyzing the contribution of emotional intelligence and core self-evaluations as personal resources to employee engagement. In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagementPerspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 209-217). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Fiorilli, C., Albanese, O., Gabola, P., & Pepe, A. (2017). Teachers emotional competence and social support: assessing the mediating role of teacher burnout. Secondary Journal of Educational Research, 61, 127–138.
• Fiorilli, C., Gabola, P., Pepe, A., Meylan, N., Curchod-Ruedi, D., Albanese, O., et al. (2015).The effect of teachers emotional intensity and social support on burnout syndrome. A comparison between Italy and Switzerland. European Review of Applied Psychology, 65, 275–283
• Gupta, M., Acarya, A., & Gupta, R. (2015) Impact of work engagement on performance in Indian Higher Education System. Review of European studies, 7(3), 192-204.
• Halbesleben, J. B., & Wheeler, A. R. (2008). The relative roles of engagement and embeddedness in predicting job performance and intention to leave. Work & Stress, 22(3), 242-256.
• Hutchings, M. (2021). Accountability, social justice and educational research. In A. Ross (Ed.), Educational research for social justice: Evidence and practice from the UK (pp. 45-78). Springer International Publishing.
• Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–724.
• Kilonzo, T. M., Were, S., & Odhiambo, R. (2018). Influence of employee engagement on the performance of teachers in secondary schools in Machakos County in Kenya. International Journal of Novel Research in Humanity and Social Sciences, 5(1), 52-71.
• Kumatongo, B., & Muzata, K. K. (2021). Research paradigms and designs with their application in education. Journal of Lexicography and Terminology, 5(1), 16-32.
• Laschinger, H. K. S., & Finegan, J. (2005). Empowering nurses for work engagement and health in hospital settings. JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration, 35(10), 439-449.
• Lisbona, A., Palaci, F., Salanova, M., & Frese, M. (2018). The effects of work engagement and self-efficacy on personal initiative and performance. Psicothema, 30, 89–96.
• Llorens, S., Salanova, M., Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). Does a positive gain spiral of resources, efficacy beliefs and engagement exist? Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 825-841
• Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research: From theory to practice (Vol. 28). John Wiley & Sons.
• Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review Psychology, 52, (1), 397–422.
• Mokaya, S., & Gitari, J. W. (2012). Effects of workplace recreation on employee performance: The Case of Kenya Utalii College. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(3), 176-183.
• Myrden, S. E., Kelloway, K. (2015). Leading to customer loyalty: a daily test of the service-profit chain. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(6/7), 585–598.
• Obilade, S. O. (1999). Leadership qualities and styles as they relate to instructional productivity. The Manager IbadanDepartment of Educational Management, University of Ibadan, 5(1), 25-32.
• Okeniyi, C. M. (1995). Relationship between leadership problems and school performance in Oyo State Secondary Schools (Unpublished.M.Ed. thesis).University of Ibadan.
• Phillips, D. C., Phillips, D. C., & Burbules, N. C. (2000). Post-positivism and educational research. Rowman & Littlefield.
• Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635.
• Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684.
• Saks, A. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21. 600–619.
• Schaufeli W. B., & Bakker A. B. (2010). Defining and measuring work engagement: Bringing clarity to the concept Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research .Taylor & Francis Hove.
• Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi‐sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.
• Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the Job Demands- Resources Model: Implications for improving work and health. In bridging occupational, organizational and public health (pp. 43-68).
• Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & Stress, 22(3), 187- 200.
• Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González- Roma, V., Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
• Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & Bakker, A. B. (2006). Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde: On the differences between work engagement and workaholism. Research Companion to Working Time and Work Addiction, 1, 193- 217.
• Schweitzer, M. J. C. (2014). Predictors of work engagement among teachers in Regina and Saskatoon (Unpublished masters thesis).University of Regina.
• Shirom, A., Gilboa, S. S., Fried, Y., & Cooper, C. L. (2008). Gender, age and tenure as moderators of work-related stressors' relationships with job performance: A meta-analysis. Human Relations, 61(10), 1371-1398.
• Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2010) Employee engagement and HRD: A seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110.
• Siddique, A., & Rana, R. A. (2021). Teachers emotional intelligence and work engagement: A sorrelational study. VFAST Transactions on Education and Social Sciences, 9(4), 153-161.
• Siddique, A., Bibi, N., & Taseer, N. A. (2020). Relationship of emotional intelligence with job performance in secondary schools of Punjab. Elementary Education Online, 19(4), 3104-3112.
• Sittar, K. (2020). Relationship of work engagements and job performance of university teachers. Bulletin of Education and Research, 42(1), 167-183.
• Upadyaya, K., Vartiainen, M., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2016). From job demands and resources to work engagement, burnout, life satisfaction, depressive symptoms and occupational health.Burnout Research, 3(4), 101-108.
• Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self- determination theorys basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management, 42, 1195–1229.
• Vangrieken, K., Grosemans, I., Dochy, F., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher autonomy and collaboration: a paradox? Conceptualizing and measuring teachers autonomy and collaborative attitude. Teacher & Teacher Education, 67, 302–315.
• Wallen, N. E., & Fraenkel, J. R. (2013). Educational research: A guide to the process. Routledge.
• Xanthopoulou, D., Baker, A. B., Heuven, E., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008).Working in the sky: A diary study on work engagement among flight attendants. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 345-356.
• Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). The role of personal resources in the job demands- resources model. International journal of stress management, 14(2), 121.
• Yanc, H. B. A., & Dal, S. (2020). The effect of leisure meaning on work engagement: Teacher example. International Education Studies, 13(11), 99-107.