International Journal of Commerce and Finance, Vol. 9, Issue 1, 2023, 68-87 * * İstanbul Ticaret University, Turkey, taysabd2@gmail.com ** İstanbul Ticaret University, Turkey, oiyigun@ticaret.edu.tr 68 The Relationship Between Employee Engagement and Job Satisfaction: A Study on Moroccan Companies Tays Abderrahim* Öykü İyigün** Submitted: 02.01.2023 Accepted: 30.03.2023 Published: 06.07.2023 Abstract Employee engagement is declining, and employees are becoming increasingly disengaged. Engaged employees with a full workforce can mean the difference between a company's survival and success. Employee engagement and job satisfaction are two distinct constructs that have been discovered to be related, and the concept of employee engagement extends beyond job satisfaction. Various studies claim that employee engagement predicts job satisfaction, but other studies find that job satisfaction leads to employee engagement. The aim of this paper is to investigate the relationship between employee engagement and job satisfaction. The study was conducted on 235 employees from various Moroccan companies. Primary data was collected using a questionnaire. A correlation analysis was used to determine the relation between employee engagement and job satisfaction. The results showed significant correlations between employee engagement and job satisfaction. Keywords: Employee engagement, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, correlation analysis, Moroccan companies. JEL classification: O15, M51 1. Introduction Job satisfaction (JS) is probably the most popular topic in organizational psychology and one of its oldest and most influential fields of investigation (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Thus, job satisfaction remains a dominant construct in the organizational literature for various reasons, including employee satisfaction being intrinsically desirable as well as the relationship International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 69 of satisfaction with many relevant behaviors in the workplace, such as job performance and employee behavior, and with related constructs such as organizational commitment and perceived organizational support (Crede et al., 2007, p.3). Employee engagement (EE) is one of the most important concerns for companies. EE is described as an employee's satisfaction with and involvement in his or her work. Employee engagement may play a role in employee retention. Employees who are satisfied with their jobs are more likely to be creative and able to keep up with the challenges of today's work force. These employees assist their companies in sustaining global market competition. Many businesses are already aware of this fact, which is why more specialists evaluate and monitor employee job satisfaction (Vorina et al., 2017, p.247). Employee engagement has different meanings for different people and organizations. Some people associate this with job satisfaction, while others measure it by assessing employees' emotional commitment to their company. Employers in today's workplace would seek an engaged and satisfied employee for a variety of reasons. Engagement has been defined as the desire, commitment, and willingness to invest oneself and use one's maximum efforts to assist the employer in succeeding (Erickson, 2005). According to Singh (2017), organizations with fully engaged employees have increased retention, productivity, customer satisfaction, innovation rates, and quality. They also have fewer accidents and need less training time. It signifies that engaged employees outperform typical employees at a lower cost. Job satisfaction can be described as a person's positive emotional responses to a specific job. It is an affective reaction that occurs in the workplace as a result of a comparison between actual outcomes and those desired, predicted, or deserved by an employee (Oshagbemi, 1999, p.112). In a variety of organizations, job satisfaction is widely researched and studied for work-related purposes. It is because it is assumed that job satisfaction is an important determinant of disengagement, retention, efficiency, achievement, and extra-role behavior. Previously, organizations measured job satisfaction to guarantee that their organizational practices resulted in a positive or pleasurable experience among employees, allowing them to perform at their best at work. Nowadays, the emphasis is on employee engagement, as an engaged employee is excited, enthusiastic, motivated, and passionate about their job (Salanova et al., 2005, p.1218). They are assumed to demonstrate greater commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and intention to stay (Saks, 2006, p.601). International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 70 Job satisfaction and employee engagement appear to be similar and related. The purpose of this study is to determine the relationship between employee engagement and job satisfaction as well as investigate the impact of job satisfaction on employee engagement. 2. Theoretical Background 2.1 Employee Engagement The term "employee engagement" (EE) has received attention from academics, particularly those in business management, psychology, and organizational behavior (Welch, 2011). Employee engagement has been described by many researchers. It was defined for the first time by Kahn (1990) as the harnessing of organization members' selves to their work tasks: in engagement, people employ and demonstrate themselves physically, mentally, emotionally, and cognitively during work roles. Employee engagement refers to employees' ability and willingness to contribute to organizational success, particularly their desire to exert maximum effort, going above and beyond what is typically required in their position to ensure the organization's success. Employee engagement is a measurable way of measuring an employee's positive or negative emotional attachment to their job, coworkers, and company, which has a significant impact on their willingness to learn and perform at work (Shanmuga & Vijayadurai, 2014). Work engagement is described as a positive, satisfying work-related mental state characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli et al., 2006). Employee engagement is a unique and distinct concept comprised of cognitive, sentimental, and behavioral components related to individual role performance (Saks, 2006). According to Maslach et al. (2001), engagement is defined by energy, participation, and effectiveness, the exact opposites of the three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy. An engaged employee is much more satisfied, dedicated, and loyal to the organization, and such an employee advocates the organization's purpose by speaking well of it, staying with it, and striving to work hard beyond the call of responsibility (Sharma & Raina, 2013). As shown, various definitions of employee engagement have been formed over the last thirty years, with the majority of them incorporating physical, emotional, and cognitive components. Four academic models can be used to define the concept of EE. The first is, as previously stated, Kahn's (1990) personal engagement model, and the second is the concept of burnout, which is the inverse of engagement (Maslach et al., 2001). The third is the multiple models of EE International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 71 developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006), and the fourth and final is Saks' (2006) multidimensional approach to engagement. Employees become much more engaged when they feel appreciated by their organization, which also improves their well-being and leads to improved results. In terms of individual outcomes, it also aids in the achievement of business objectives and goals such as organizational commitment, improved retention, and job satisfaction (Schaufeli et al. 2002, p.702). 2.2 Job Satisfaction Job satisfaction (JS) is considered to be a fundamental attitude of employees (Saari & Judge, 2004, p.398). It is considered an older concept that emerged between the mid-1970s and 1976. Job satisfaction is defined as an individual's pleasant or positive emotional state as a result of evaluating work experiences (Locke, 1969). Similarly, Brief & Weiss (2002) define job satisfaction as an affective reaction to work or a psychological state represented simultaneously by cognitive and affective indicators. Job satisfaction is described as a positive or negative overall evaluation of one's job or job situation. Numerous efforts have been made to define the term "job satisfaction," which has excited the interest of many scholars. They presented the concept of JS in various ways and were unable to agree on a single general definition. This disparity is caused by the researchers' differing interests and beliefs. Brief & Roberson (1989) define job satisfaction as an internal state expressed by affectively and/or cognitively evaluating one's work experience favorably or unfavorably. In connection with the above, Judge et al. (2012) note that job satisfaction represents multidimensional psychological responses of the individual to his work, consisting of cognitive (evaluative) and affective (emotional) responses. Furthermore, Paillé (2010) observes that the current scientific literature agrees that job satisfaction is the result of work evaluations. Job satisfaction is positively related to worker productivity and negatively related to employee turnover. It also states that higher job satisfaction is associated with higher productivity, implying that employees who are more satisfied will be more productive (Silverthorne, 2004, p.595). An engaged employee is also more productive and less likely to leave the organization, allowing us to conclude that job satisfaction is related to employee engagement. Employees International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 72 that completely like their jobs will report high levels of job satisfaction. If not, they will be dissatisfied with their jobs. Three characteristics distinguish job satisfaction definitions (Baş, 2002, p.22). To begin, job satisfaction is a type of emotional reaction developed in response to situations that arise in the workplace. As a result, it cannot be seen but must be felt. Second, job satisfaction is affected by how well outcomes meet expectations. As a result, environmental factors influence job satisfaction. People who cannot find what they are looking for will be dissatisfied. Finally, job satisfaction influences people's attitudes toward their jobs. In other words, while people may have positive attitudes toward some aspects of their jobs, they may have negative attitudes toward others. According to Schneider et al. (2003), the success of an organization increases general satisfaction with work and significantly increases the correlation between joy and workplace productivity. Even events outside of the workplace have an impact on job satisfaction. Job satisfaction is one of the most perplexing concepts in organizational psychology. This is because it is an emotional state that is challenging to measure and study objectively. The ambiguity of this concept is what led to the emergence of hundreds of research studies on it. 2.3 Relationship between Employee Engagement and Job Satisfaction According to Hochschild's (1990) research, disengaged employees exhibit apathy, discontent, and social detachment. It is the opposite of engaged employees, who have a pleasurable emotional state at work and demonstrate a high level of job satisfaction. Fernandez (2007) indicated the distinction between engagement and job satisfaction and stated that both are not the same and that, because an organization cannot rely on employee satisfaction to retain the best and brightest employees, employee engagement becomes much more important. According to Schneider et al. (2009), employee engagement emotions and behaviors differ from job satisfaction. It also mentions that they deal with various types of issues and have different drivers. The engagement is said to be more than satisfied. The drivers of job satisfaction are related to company practices for employees such as benefits, job stability, and advancement opportunities, whereas the drivers of engagement are all about the emotions that arise when abilities and skills are fully utilized. Employee engagement also refers to a sense of connection between an employee's work and the company's goals, as well as encouragement to innovate. Biswas & Bhatnagar's (2013) research provides empirical data about job satisfaction and its International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 73 relationship to employee engagement. They discovered that employee engagement causes variations in organizational commitment and job satisfaction. They also investigated the impact of employee engagement on job satisfaction and discovered a significantly positive impact. Low levels of engagement and job satisfaction can lead to a variety of organizational issues. The same has been linked to increased levels of turnover and absenteeism, potentially increasing the organization's costs in terms of poor performance and reduced productivity. Ferreira et al. (2014) examined the connection between engagement and company performance as a result of engagement as mediated by job satisfaction. According to the findings, engagement is positively associated with employees, and job satisfaction influences company performance. There is a connection between employee engagement and job satisfaction because the two terms influence each other in terms of job motivation, satisfaction, and efficiency. These variables are related but different. Job satisfaction is one of the factors that influence employee engagement, and the most significant elements of job satisfaction are working conditions, employment relationships, and the possibility of advancement (Blanchard et al., 2019). 3 Methodology 3.1 Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses The study's goal is to discover the relationship between employee engagement and job satisfaction. Figure 1 represents the theoretical framework that describes the variables in the conceptual model. Based on a review of the literature, the model proposes employee engagement as a dependent variable and job satisfaction as an independent variable. Figure 1: Conceptual model Based on the literature cited above, the following hypothesis was formulated: Hypothesis 1: There is significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement. Hypothesis 2: Employee engagement is affected by job satisfaction. Job Satisfaction Employee Engagement International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 74 3.2 Method Primary data collection was implemented via a questionnaire to test the hypotheses, with a predetermined list of questions provided to all respondents. The quantitative questionnaire was distributed through an electronic survey. Google Forms was used to construct the form. This enables us to create a link for the questionnaire that respondents can easily use to answer the questions. The goal is to examine the impact of job satisfaction on employee engagement in various Moroccan companies. 3.3 Scales After further review of the literature, it was attempted to identify the scales that might best measure the variables used, and it was decided to use the scales in studies whose validity had been verified in various situations in the literature. The questionnaire form has three sections. In the first section, questions were asked to assess the participants' demographic characteristics. In this context, information about the participants' age, gender, education, and level of experience was obtained. In the second section, to measure job satisfaction, which is the independent variable of the model developed in line with the purpose of the research, the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) was used to determine the power of the "job satisfaction scale" (Kardaş & Şencan, 2018). The short version of MSQ is a 5-point Likert-type scale consisting of 20 items. No changes were made to the scale. MSQ scale is made up of two distinct components: Intrinsic job satisfaction measuring the nature of the tasks at work, for example the item “The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities”, and job satisfaction extrinsic measuring situational aspects outside of work, for example the item “My pay and the amount of work I do”. In addition, the expression “In my current job, I am satisfied with…” was introduced to each of the twenty items. We used the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire validated and adapted to the French context by Roussel et al. (1996). MSQ is widely used in the scientific literature and known for its stability and excellent internal consistency through numerous preliminary studies (Martins & Proença, 2012). In the third section, to measure the "employee engagement scale," which constitutes the dependent variable of the research, the UWES-17 was used. This scale, called the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), is composed of 17 items and was found to have good psychometric properties (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 75 The UWES-17 scale is grouped into three subscales with three items each: vigor, dedication, and absorption (Carmona-Halty et al., 2019). Employees indicate their feelings and opinions utilizing a seven-point Likert-type scale, helping us to gather insight into employee motivation and productivity. All items are scored on a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (Never) to 7 (Always). For the purposes of this study, the French version of the UWES–17 was adapted from Schaufeli and Bakker's (2004) report. 4 Findings All analyses were conducted using SPSS 20. First, demographic information about participants is provided in order to define sample characteristics. Following that, we examined the descriptive statistics values and correlations between the variables of interest. In this study, we gathered data from Moroccan workers in a variety of sectors. Questionnaires were presented and completed via Google Forms. In total 235 surveys were completed and the results used to inform our hypothesis. The participants in this survey included a wide range of age groups. 38.3% of those surveyed were aged between 18 - 25 years old, 43% of the participants were aged 26 - 35 years, 13.2% were aged 36 - 45 years, 3.8% were aged 46 - 55 years, and 1.7% were aged over 56 years old. The survey has 40% female participants and 60% male participants. As well as, marital status indicated that 73.6% of the participants were single and 26.4% were married. Participants in the survey were asked to indicate their level of education. The results of the study determine that 5.5% of those surveyed were without a degree, 12.8% of the participants had institute degree, 41.7% had bachelor degree, 35.3% had master degree, and 4.7% had a PhD. Participants' levels of job experience were also reported in the survey. The study found that 25.1% of respondents had been working for less than 1 year, 37% had been working from 1 to 5 years, 32.3% had been working from 6 to 10 years, and 5.5% had been working more than 10 years. The following table resumes demographic information about participants (N=235). Table 1: Demographic information of participants Variable Frequency Percentage International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 76 Gender Female Male 94 141 40.0% 60.0% Age 18 - 25 90 38.3% 26 - 35 101 43.0% 36 - 45 31 13.2% 46 - 55 9 3.8% Over 56 4 1.70% Marital Status Single 173 73.6% Married 62 26.4% level of education Without a Degree 13 5.5% Institute 30 12.8% Bachelor Degree 98 41.7% Master Degree 83 35.3% PhD 11 4.7% Job Experience Less than 1 year 59 25.11% 1 – 5 years 87 37.02% 6 – 10 years 76 32.34% More than 10 years 13 5.53% 4.1 Reliability Analysis Cronbach's alpha was used to measure the reliability of each scale, as shown in Table 2. Though that the scales employed are validated, the researcher investigated their reliability and determined that both scales are reliable with Cronbach’s Alpha values greater than 0.8 (Nunnaly International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 77 & Bernstein, 1994). The Alpha coefficient for the job satisfaction scale is 0.877, while the Alpha coefficient for the employee engagement scale is 0.944. The overall scale's Alpha coefficient is 0.910, indicating that the scales had an acceptable level of reliability. Table 2: Reliability analysis of scales Scale No. of items Cronbach’s Alpha Job Satisfaction scale 20 .877 Employee engagement scale 17 .944 General Reliability .910 4.2 Descriptive Statistics Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics for the two variables examined in the study, namely employee engagement and job satisfaction. In the survey, the mean score for employee engagement is 73.63, and the mean score for job satisfaction is 57.60. Table 3: Descriptive statistics N Mean Standard Deviation Job_Satisfaction 235 57.60 12.112 Employee_engagement 235 73.63 19.823 N valid (list-wise) 235 4.3 Factor Analysis Factor analysis was conducted with Varimax rotation in order to determine the factors of the "Job Satisfaction" and "Employee Engagement" variables. 4.3.1 Factor Analysis of Job Satisfaction The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was found as 0.886 and ranges between 0.8 and 1, thus it is acceptable. The value demonstrates that the items are correlated and are appropriate for factor analysis. Barlett’s test produced a value of 965.893 with a significance level of 0.000, which confirms the conclusion that the data is suitable for factor analysis. Items 2, 4, 7, 10, and 20 were removed because of their poor loading (under 0.5). Loadings less than 0.5 do not contribute significantly to determining the underlying factors (Hair et al., 2011). International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 78 Moreover, Chin (1998) argued that manifest variables with loading values less than 0.5 should be removed. Table 4: Factor analysis and reliability test of job satisfaction No Items Loading Variance Ex. 1 Being able to keep busy all the time. .862 50.01% 3 The chance to do different things from time to time. .604 5 The way my boss handles his/her workers. .545 6 The competence of my supervisor in making decisions. .728 8 The way my job provides for steady employment. .509 9 The chance to do things for other people. .526 11 The chance to do something that makes use of my abilities. .655 12 The way company policies are put into practice. .508 13 My pay and the amount of work I do. .569 14 The chances for advancement on this job. .542 15 The freedom to use my own judgment. .563 16 The chance to try my own methods of doing the job. .589 17 The working conditions. .511 18 The way my co-workers get along with each other. .553 19 The praise I get for doing a good job. .535 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy .886 Barlett’s Test of Sphericity Chi Square 965.893 df 105 Sig .000 International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 79 4.3.2 Factor Analysis of Employee Engagement: The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was found as 0.956 and ranges between 0.8 and 1, thus it is acceptable. The value demonstrates that the items are correlated and are appropriate for factor analysis. Barlett’s test produced a value of 2355.906 with a significance level of 0.000, which confirms the conclusion that the data is suitable for factor analysis. Table 5: Factor analysis and reliability test of employee engagement No Items Loading Variance Ex. 1 At my work, I feel bursting with energy .651 59.54% 2 I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose .650 3 Time flies when I'm working .566 4 At my job, I feel strong and vigorous .546 5 I am enthusiastic about my job .594 6 When I am working, I forget everything else around me .609 7 My job inspires me .616 8 When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work .663 9 I feel happy when I am working intensely .604 10 I am proud on the work that I do .633 11 I am immersed in my work .583 12 I can continue working for very long periods at a time .518 13 To me, my job is challenging .620 14 I get carried away when I’m working .627 15 At my job, I am very resilient, mentally .551 16 It is difficult to detach myself from my job .587 International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 80 17 At my work I always persevere, even when things do not go well .557 Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy .956 Barlett’s Test of Sphericity Chi Square 2355.906 df 136 Sig .000 Confirmatory factor analysis loads of the job satisfaction variable have ranged from 0.508 to 0.862. Composite reliability (CR) value related with the factor is 0.781; and average variance extracted (AVE) is 0.500. Confirmatory factor analysis loads related with employee engagement variable have ranged from 0.518 to 0.663. CR value related with the factor is 0.904 and AVE value is 0.595. KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) which indicates the appropriateness of the data for factor analysis was 0.886 for job satisfaction; and 0.956 for employee engagement. In this regard, data with MSA (measure of sampling adequacy) values above 0.800 are considered appropriate for factor analysis. 4.4 Correlation Analyses The data was analyzed using correlation analysis for the purposes of the study, and the results are described in tables 6. Pearson's correlation analysis was used to evaluate the relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement. The Pearson's correlation coefficient is 0.208 (Table 6), and the p value for the two-tailed test of significance is less than 0.05 (p=0.000). Table 6: Correlations for variables Job satisfaction Employee Engagement Job satisfaction Pearson Correlation 1 . 208* Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 235 235 Employee Engagement Pearson Correlation .208* 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 81 N 235 235 *. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). The data shows that employee engagement has a weak positive relationship with job satisfaction (r = 0.208 < 0.50). Moreover, the relationship between employee engagement and job satisfaction is statistically significant (p = 0.000 < 0.05). This indicates that job satisfaction has a positive impact on employee engagement. Hypothesis 1: There is significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement. (Accepted) 4.5 Regression Analysis Table 7: Regression Statistics Multiple R 0.207969 R Square 0.043251 Adjusted R Square 0.039145 Standard Error 19.431586 Observations 235 Table 8: ANOVA a (Simple linear regression model output) Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 3977.129 1 3977.129 10.533 .001 Residual 87977.662 233 377.587 Total 91954.791 234 a. Dependent variable: Employee engagement Table 9: Coefficients a (Simple linear regression model output) Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Intercept 6.172660 8.752077 .000 Job satisfaction 0.207969 0.104880 3.245463 .001 International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 82 a. Dependent variable: Employee engagement From the regression statistics, the multiple correlation coefficient (R) value is 0.208 and this indicates a low level of prediction. The R squared value is 0.043 and this means that job satisfaction explains just 4.3% of the variability of employee engagement. From the ANOVA results, it can be seen that F is 10.533 and the p-value is 0.001. This implies that the regression is a good fit for the data. From the output of regression, the coefficient and p-value of job satisfaction are 0.208 and 0.001 respectively. This implies that there is a positive and significant relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement (p= 0.001 < 0.05). It can be concluded that job satisfaction has a positive impact on employee engagement. A unit increase in job satisfaction will lead to an increase in employee engagement by 20.8%. Hypothesis 2: Employee engagement is impacted by job satisfaction. (Accepted) 5 Discussion and Conclusion The first section of the thesis examined the study topic, "the relationship between employee engagement and job satisfaction." The purpose of the research was stated, and the previous work on the research topic was provided. Employee engagement and job satisfaction, as well as their types and factors, were discussed in this section. In the second section of the thesis study, the thesis research technique is discussed in detail. In this context, the theoretical framework is examined, as are the research model and main hypotheses. Also, the data collection method and statistical techniques used in the research were specified, as well as information about the sample selection and the scales used in the research. In the third section, the research findings and results were evaluated. Furthermore, all of the findings and the main conclusion regarding the relationship between employee engagement and job satisfaction variables are provided. Research hypotheses are based on the relationship between employee engagement and job satisfaction. The hypotheses suggested were tested using appropriate statistical analysis with the help of data obtained from Moroccan employees. These findings are summarized below. In terms of the general demographic structure of the participants, the vast majorities are males (60%), between 26 and 35 years old (43%), followed by those between 18 and 25 years old (38.3%), and single (73.6%). In terms of educational level, 41.7% of respondents have a International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 83 bachelor's degree, and 35.3% have a master's degree. In terms of working experience years, 37% of employees have between 1 and 5 years, 32.3% have between 6 and 10 years, and 25.1% have less than one year of work experience. The study findings section was obtained using correlation and regression analyses. Employee engagement and job satisfaction had a generally favorable and significant relationship. Employee engagement was found to be related to job satisfaction (r =.156, p > 0.05). There were statistically significant variations based on gender, age, and marital status. Employee engagement and job satisfaction would differ between men and women, employees' ages would differ in employee engagement and job satisfaction, and marital status would differ in employee engagement and job satisfaction. Overall, the study on employee engagement and the influence of job satisfaction demonstrates that job satisfaction is highly important in achieving increased employee engagement. Job satisfaction is classified as either intrinsic or extrinsic satisfaction. This research showed a link between employee engagement and job satisfaction. Thus, by providing possibilities for job satisfaction, a company may increase employee engagement. Finally, given the importance of evaluating employee engagement in organizational environments as mentioned above, researchers are invited to invest their efforts in this field of scientific research that we qualify as beneficial for organizations and employees at the same time. Managers within the administration must be aware of the importance of evaluating employee engagement in order to ensure the efficient and sustainable functioning of their organizations. In addition, this type of research makes it possible to highlight the psychological mechanisms underlying the structuring of job satisfaction as well as the contextual and cultural factors. 6 Limitations This study, like other studies, has limitations. Although this study aims to contribute to the literature on employee engagement, it is not without limits. To begin, the sample size (N = 235) is considered to be very average. Furthermore, because the data in the survey was taken by e- mail and the participants' mental and physical situations were unknown, the consistency of the appropriate responses may be faulty. However, using a quantitative technique based on a single questionnaire is insufficient. To provide meaning to the determining variables of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction, it was preferable to employ a mixed approach (semi-structured interviews). International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 84 Future research should look at the relationships between job satisfaction and other variables such as quality of life at work, organizational commitment, turnover, absenteeism, and so on. These studies will contribute to the evaluation of employee satisfaction and the development of effective human resource management strategies. Furthermore, in future research, companies from different sectors should be studied; analyzed and comparative studies should be conducted between the sectors. References Baş, T. (2002). Determination of job satisfaction profiles of faculty members. DE Üİİ BF Dergisi, 17(2), 19-37. Biswas, S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2013). Mediator analysis of employee engagement: role of perceived organizational support, PO fit, organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Vikalpa, 38(1), 27-40. Blanchard, C., Baker, A., Perreault, D., Mask, L., & Tremblay, M. (2020). The importance of keeping employees satisfied: Three prevailing factors for health organization leaders. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 34(1), 23-39. Brief, A. P., & Roberson, L. (1989). Job attitude organization: An exploratory study 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(9), 717-727. Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual review of psychology, 53(1), 279-307. 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. Frontiers in psychology, 10, 1017. Crede, M., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Dalal, R. S., & Bashshur, M. (2007). Job satisfaction as mediator: An assessment of job satisfaction's position within the nomological network. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(3), 515-538. Erickson, T. J. (2005). Testimony submitted before the US Senate Committee on Health. Education, Labor and Pensions, May, 26. International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 85 Fernandez, C. P. (2007). Employee engagement. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 13(5), 524-526. Ferreira, P., & de Oliveira, E. R. (2014, September). Engaging to Perform: Job Satisfaction as a Mediator. In European Conference on Knowledge Management (Vol. 1, p. 336). Academic Conferences International Limited. Hochschild, A. R. (1990). Ideology and emotion management: A perspective and path for future research. Research agendas in the sociology of emotions, 117, 117-142. Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual review of psychology, 63, 341-367. Judge, T. A., Hulin, C. L., & Dalal, R. S. (2012). Job satisfaction and job affect. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724. Locke, E. A. (1969). What is job satisfaction?. Organizational behavior and human performance, 4(4), 309-336. Martins, H., & Proença, T. (2012). Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire–Psychometric properties and validation in a population of Portuguese hospital workers. FEP Journal– Economics & Management: Working Paper, 471(1), 1-23. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 397-422. Oshagbemi, T. (1999). Academics and their managers: a comparative study in job satisfaction. Personnel review. Paillé, P. (2010). Citizenship in the workplace: examining work attitudes as predictors among French employee. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(4), 53. Roussel, P., Igalens, J., & Sire, B. (1996). Rémunération, motivation et satisfaction. Economica. Saari, L. M., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Employee attitudes and job satisfaction. Human Resource Management: Published in Cooperation with the School of Business Administration, The University of Michigan and in alliance with the Society of Human Resources Management, 43(4), 395-407. International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 86 Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of managerial psychology, 21(7), 600-619. Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. Journal of applied Psychology, 90(6), 1217. Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and psychological measurement, 66(4), 701-716. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, 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., & Bakker, A. (2004). UWES Utrecht work engagement scale: Preliminary manual version 1.1. Utrecht: Department of Psychology, Utrecht University. Schneider, B., Hanges, P. J., Smith, D. B., & Salvaggio, A. N. (2003). Which comes first: employee attitudes or organizational financial and market performance?. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 836. Schneider, B., Macey, W. H., Barbera, K. M., & Martin, N. (2009). Driving customer satisfaction and financial success through employee engagement. People & Strategy, 32(2), 22- 28. Shanmuga, P., & Vijayadurai, J. (2014). Employee Engagement in Organisations. European Journal of Business and Management (Department of Management studies, Bharath Niketan Engineering College, Andipatty), 6(34). Sharma, B. R., & Raina, A. D. (2013). Employee engagement predictors in the Indian segment of a global media organization. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 1-12. Silverthorne, C. (2004). The impact of organizational culture and person‐organization fit on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(7), 592-599. Singh, L. B. (2017). Job satisfaction as a predictor of Employee engagement. Amity Global HRM Review, 7(1), 20-30. International Journal of Commerce and Finance Tays Abderrahim Öykü İyigün 87 Vorina, A., Simonič, M., & Vlasova, M. (2017). An analysis of the relationship between job satisfaction and employee engagement. Economic themes, 55(2), 243-262. Welch, M. (2011). The evolution of the employee engagement concept: communication implications. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 16(4), 328-346.