Keywords

Collective Organizational Engagement Teamwork Engagement, Organizational resources, HRM practices.

Introduction

Work engagement (WE) challenges is a reality faced by all types of organizations. Specifically, It is difficult for businesses to sustain in market without creating competitive edge.

One of the key element in creating competitive edge in organizations is to increase firm performance by engaging skilled employees.

In the last two decades WE has been extensively studied by researchers. Recently Study of engagement at organizational level has become topic of interest in research. As the competition among organizations are increasing gradually. Everyone wants to get competitive edge over its rivals. Collective Organizational engagement is an effective way to enhance the organization competency by engaging employees towards organizational goals. Employees who are engaged at work performance better than other employees (Barrick et al., 2015). Costa et al. (2014) argue that for better performance of organizations it is imperative to turn employees' skills into employee performance efficiently, which is why, importance of WE in general and COE in particular is significant for organizations. Collective organizational engagement is the shared perception of the organization members which they used to invest their physical, emotional and cognitive abilities into their work.

The concept of engagement was firstly introduced by (Kahn, 1990) in Academic Literature. Due to its importance at workplace concept it gets importance in both academia and practice. But for a long time research focuses only on the individual engagement at neglect the team and organizational level.

Customer service is an important indicator of organizational performance because the displeasure of customer speaks more loudly and publicly. Organization performance is depends on the employee’s performance or efficiency of work which comes from the employee engagement at organizational level. Organization where employees are engaged at work enjoys competitive advantage but most of the works on engagement are on the individual level current research would examine it on team or organizational level and address the gap.

Literature Review

Collective Organizational Engagement

The concept of Collective Organizational Engagement has its root in the kahn engagement concept he presented in 1990. For a long time research focuses on the antecedents of individual engagement and neglect the team and collective engagement. But in last few years collective engagement has caught the attention of researchers.

Based on the khan concept of engagement collective organizational engagement can be defined as the “organization’s members’ collective perception which members fully invested themselves into the work physically, emotionally, and cognitively (Barrick et al., 2015). Due to engagement at work employee perform better and efficiency of the organization enhanced. There are empirical evidence which argued that organization where employees are engaged at work create competitive advantage (Rich et al., 2010).

Management defined goals of organization and make policies to achieve the desired outcome. Than these patterns and polices are shared in the hierarchy. When this shared sense of perception is created among the employees it creates a social motivational process which is easily transferable to the other members of the organization. In social process employees interact with each other and share their experiences and perceptions. In sharing of ideas most probably people adopt one another opinion and made it its own. Likewise the interaction process creates sense of engagement this mechanism transfers from one to another person in organization and become an organizational level resource. Engaged employees not only work to achieve the destined objective but also in the social process they urge others as well to do so. Due to this process employees become engaged in small groups or teams and try to do their assigned tasks efficiently.

Engaged employees are more productive employees (Rich et al., 2010). Aforesaid social process one way creates engagement in employees and also enhances the work role clarity among employees. Organization adopts engagement as the asset and uses it to enhance the firm value. Precisely collective organizational engagement is members shared perception which comes from the individuals. Employee engagement refers to the individual engagement towards work whereas organization engagement argues about individual motivation towards organizational goals.

Human Resource Management Practices

HRM practices are formed for the employee well-being. It creates healthy relationship between two parties (employee and employer). As organization works for the employee’s betterment and invest in them therefore organization wants desired behavior against these investment. Literature suggest that organizations often form such exchange relationships and these exchange process creates engagement (Shaw et al., 2009).

Current study argues on two types of HRM practices first talks about the employee expectation from organization e.g investment in employee and second talk about the firm’s expectation from employees. These practices work as the exchange process. As organization invest in the employee well-being and work for their development, in result employee express the desired behavior. This process creates a long lasting relationship between two parties and both work for one another interest. These relationships transform the short term objectives into long term goals and employees forget about the short term monetary rewards. Both parties work for the development and one another growth.

In result of HRM Investment Company gain a pool of human capital which is utilized to get the firm performance. Investment on Human spread message among employees that organization care about them. It motivate employees to work in organization interest as organization is doing for them. Vice versa Employee engagement towards work enhances the organization efforts towards employee well-being and development. Therefore in the results of these efforts employee instead of focusing on short term monetary rewards work on long lasting healthy relationship (Barrick et al., 2015).

Studies had proved that job security increase the employee satisfaction and satisfied employees are more productive as they engage their abilities at workplace to attain the desirable goals (Huang et al., 2016). HRM practice discussed above enhance the collective organizational engagement by investing in employee development and betterment. As organization provides job security, development, pay equity to employees in exchange of these resources achieve the organizational goals and do their tasks effectively and efficiently. Due to this proficiency of employee’s organization meet their desired goal and get pefromance.

In this social exchange relationship organization work for the employee betterment and employees work hard for the organization success. Employees are engaged at work because they are received the desired outcome and organization continue investing as organization is achieving its purposes. Therefore HRM practices considerably resolve the conflicts between two parties and achievement of common organization goals will become the sole objective. Studies had shown that when top management shows serious interest in employee well-being and development it results into the engagement and loyalty. Organization get this engagement through social exchange process as employees realized that organization is sincere with them they in exchange work for the welfare of the organization.

Organizational Resources

It is basic nature of the human that he acquire resources, mange it and finally disseminate it for its betterment. In organization those resources which are needed to facilitate the day to day work are called organizational resources. Organizational resources enhance the employee motivation and he became more engaged in work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Organization resources lessened the psychological and physical fatigue and also facilitate employees to work efficiently. Organizational resources can be defined as those resources which are necessary to fulfill the task at workplace. As organizational resources reduced the burdenof individual therefore personal growth has increase and employee divest it into achieving organization objective (Salanova et al., 2005).

According to Bakker & Demerouti (2008) resourceful environment has increase employee motivation and willingness to work. It doesn’t only enhance the employee performance but also they work with their free will for the better performance. Resources fulfill the person basic needs like autonomy and relatedness. Bakker & Demerouti (2007) argues that high job demands at work creates stress in employees which will lead towards burnout. Whereas according to JDR Theory at the time resources are provided to fulfill the high job demands it creates engagement instead of burnout. Current study takes training, autonomy and technology as the organizational resource. Researcher argues that when organization provide technology and autonomy to employees and trained them to tackle the situation or work related queries the work high job demands doesn’t stress them out. Instead of it resources help them to engage at work and enhance engagement at individual as well as team level.

Teamwork Engagement

According to (Salanova et al., 2003) teamwork creates innovative work pattern due to which efficiency of work increases which creates splendid services or product. As teams are group of two or more people having unique skills therefore teams are more productivity and their performance are much better than individuals. Instead of all these characteristics previous research focuses only on the individual engagement and neglect the teamwork engagement.

As discussed that team are the set of two or more people which work together and interact independently for a fixed spam of time to achieve the common goals. Therefore studies has proved that teamwork in organization enhances the productivity and efficiency of work (Torrente et al., 2012). In organization Employee work in team to get the high performance on which they can differentiate themselves from competitors. Team success is dependent on the factor that how members of team react towards the task assigned to them and how the team relate their team objective with organizational Goals. In this regard the role of Teamwork engagement is very crucial as it engage the team towards organizational goals through teamwork engagement.

Teamwork and collective engagement has more strong relationship than the individual engagement and collective engagement has (Mäkikangas et al., 2016). Therefore study suggest that teamwork engagement as the mediator strengthen the relationship between resources and collective organizational engagement.

Theoretical Explanation of Model

In the present paper researcher take organization resources as the predictor of collective organizational engagement. According to Sirmon et al. (2007) that the way we treat and mange resources output comes in the same way therefore good management of resources create good output. Training, Autonomy and technology are taken as the first resource and HRM practices as another organization resource in the current study. Barrick et al. (2015) Argues that predictor of collective organizational engagement must be some resources. Researcher present that teamwork engagement mediates between the HRM practices, Organizational Resources and Collective organizational engagement. Current study proposes that both resources (organizational resources and HRM practices) fulfill the three basic conditions (meaningfulness, availability and psychological safety) of engagement presented by the khan 1990. Meaningfulness availability is assured by the organizational resources whereas HRM practices ensure the psychological safety.

Hypotheses Development

Organizational Resources (OR) and Collective Organizational Engagement (COE)

Organizational resources such as autonomy, technology and training are taken as the predictor of collective engagement at organizational level. These three specific resources are taken from the study where eight researchers carried out the qualitative study and results disclose the three organizational resources (Training, autonomy, technology). Researcher argues that these resources predict engagement and performance. Salanova et al. (2005) Resources are the predictors of engagement as resources motivate employees on doing work. When resources are provided to perform work related task employee get more involved in work due to these resources and perform task more efficiently. Resources are the one of the main predictor of engagement and it fulfills the human need like relatedness and autonomy (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).

High job demands increase the stress level among employees which will end into burnout but argues that if resources are provided to satisfy high job demands it will create engagement instead of burnout. According to Schaufeli et al. (2009) JD-R theory job demands create exhaustion and lack of resources produce disengagement thus if the resources are provided against demands it creates engagement. This discussion leads to the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 1: Organizational Resources predict collective organizational engagement.

Human Resource Management (HRM) and Collective Organizational Engagement (COE)

In the current study Human Resource Management practices are taken as another resource which predicts collective organizational engagement. Human Resource Management practices such as inducements and investment motivate employees and form a health relationship between organization and employee. HRM practices discussed in current study invest in employee wellbeing and employee get motivated in exchange of which employees invest themselves for the organization betterment. This will form a long lasting relationship between two as it transforms employees short term monetary rewards into long term objectives.

Shaw et al. (2009) argues that organization’s invest in employee’s carrier and work for the betterment of employee turnover ratio are very low in such organizations. When employees feel safe at work and organization provide pay equity and work for the development in exchange employee also work for the organization benefit. This Social exchange process transforms a healthy relationship and employee instead of struggling for personnel growth work for the organizational growth and become engage in work. Due to this employee instead of work on short term monetary rewards work for the longer befits. On that bases researcher propose the following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2: Human Resource Management Practices positively predicts Collective Organizational Engagement.

Organizational Resources (OR), Teamwork Engagement (TWE) and Collective Organizational Engagement (COE)

Teamwork engagement is very crucial as teams play a vital role in the performance of the organization it enhance the efficiency of work (Costa et al., 2014). When organization provide resources to deal with high job demands it facilitate individual due to which engagement increases. Therefore team engagement is necessary to reach the collective organizational engagement. Therefore to strengthen the relationship between the organizational resources and collective organization level teamwork engagement is needed. Previous studies have examined the teamwork engagement as the mediator between social resources and team performance study examine the teamwork engagement role between Organizational resources and collective organizational engagement.

In the light of social exchange theory and JD-R Theory research present that when organization provide resources in exchange of these resources employee get engaged at team and then organization level. Resources predict engagement at team level. As organization provide resources at workplace and employee get engaged in teams which result in engagement at both team and organizational level.

Hypothesis 3: Team work engagement mediates the relationship between Organizational Resources and Collective organizational engagement.

Organizational Resources (OR) and Team Work Engagement(TWE)

"Job resources refer to those physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that are either/or: (a) functional in achieving work goals, (b) reduce job demands and the associated physiological and psychological costs, (c) stimulate personal growth and development" (Demerouti et al., 2001, p 501.)

Review of extant literature shows that different types of job resources positively predict various organizational outcomes (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Schaufeli & Bakker (2004) argued that resources are the antecedent of WE They argued that resource-full environment increases the employee willingness physically, cognitively and emotionally to perform better at the workplace. Therefore job resources predict engagement (Salanova et al., 2005) and job performance (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Salanova, 2005).

This concept has its roots in (Kahn, 1990) seminal work on work engagement that resources urge employees to invest emotional, physical and cognitive abilities into work efficiently.

In organizations certain tasks are assigned to teams for specific period of time and employees in the supervision of team leader try to achieve those specific tasks through teamwork. TWE is development of positive attitude which motivate and engage employees in work-roles so they can achieve the desired objectives. Recent studies have shown that team work increases the effectiveness and productivity of work (Torrente et al., 2012). “Team work engagement is a shared, positive and fulfilling, motivational emergent state of work-related well-being” (Torrente et al., 2012, p.107). Teamwork engagement is a multidimensional construct signalized by the cognitive dimension team vigor, team absorption and team dedication (Costa et al., 2014).

Recently, social resources are found to predict TWE and performance at organizational level (Torrente et al., 2012).Based on JDRT current study suggests that organization provide resources to its employees (Training, Autonomy, and technology) to fulfill the job demands employees work efficiently and get engaged into work. When organization provide required resources like technology which is needed to perform work, training for up to date knowledge in the relevant filed to do better work and autonomy to choose task as per their own preference, the employees get motivated and become engaged. The resources satisfy high job demands and these job demands instead of creating stress or burnout will engage them at work and they produce better output. Teamwork creates innovation in work which in turn enhances employees' teamwork efficiency (Salanova et al., 2003).This leads to the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: OR will be positively related to TWE.

Human Resource Management (HRM), Teamwork engagement (TWE) and Collective Organizational engagement (COE)

A number of researches has revealed that HRM practices in the organization prove very motivational for the employees specially when organization is focusing the on the performance (Ahmed et al., 2016). In the current study with respect to JD-R model I’m taking HRM practices as the second organization resource and specifically considering two practices one HRM investments and secondly employee expectations from the firm. Social exchange theory argued that people give something in exchange of other thing it could be material, non-monetary and for other benefits it’s a give and take process.

In organization employees invest their abilities into work and in exchange they want something which is valuable to them. Two discussed practices which are taken in the model will prove that when company invest on their employee in shape of employee development, pay on performance and give pay equity in exchange of that employee engaged in work and achieve goals for the firm performance. Research has suggested that when ample resources are provided to fulfill the job demands it will result in engagement and engaged employees are the productive employees (Saks, 2006).

Hypothesis 5: Team work engagement mediates the relationship between HRM practices and Collective organizational engagement.

Human Resource Management Practices (HRM) and Teamwork Engagement (TWE)

HRM practices can be categorized along two dimensions: (1) those practices that focus on the firm’s expectations of employees (HRM expectation-enhancing practices) and (2) those that enhance the employees’ expected rewards and outcomes (HRM inducements and investments) (Shaw et al., 2009, p. 1016).

Current study focuses on two main HRM practices i-e (1) the practices which enhance the HRM expectation, for instance skill competence, cooperation of employees with managers and other employees, role responsibilities and motivation, and (2) employees expected rewards and outcome practices at work. As organizations invest heavily in employees' development such as better carrier, provision of job security and provision of benefits in exchange, management expect that employees will work for the organization and will achieve goals for it. In this social exchange view both practices work mutually and enhance the employee motivation on one side and on the other side urge firm to invest in employee development (Shaw et al., 2009).

Social Exchange Theory addresses this as a two way process; employer work for the employee development and employees work for the organization development. They exchange development against development, care against care and firm become engaged in the employee betterment in return employee become engaged in his/her work for the firm betterment (Cropanzano et al., 2005).

The exchange process as discussed in the study results in a long lasting relationship among employer and employee. Employees tend to forget their individual objective, short term monetary rewards and engage into work as a part of a team and focus on long term rewards, achievements and sometimes non-monetary benefits. The care and the interest firm shows in the employees creates an obligation on employees and to set-off this obligation employee work for the firm by investing his physical, emotional and cognitive abilities into work. Employees willingly learn new skills needed to perform job efficiently, take care of organization policies and its turnover intention ends in the result of HRM investment practices (Barrick et al., 2015).

The results from recently conducted studies suggested that employees who are secure at job feel more satisfied therefore they are more productive at work by using all their abilities to achieve organizational goals (Huang et al., 2016). Practices such as HRM expectation enhancing practices, investments and inducements may predict engagement in teams as team is also a collective variable.

Employees receiving the benefits like job security, skill development and pay equity are engaged at work. Due to these benefits and engagement employee focus only on the goals therefore they forget individualism and conflicts with other employees and work in teams try to attain the common objectives of the team (Barrick et al., 2015). This leads to the second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: HRM practices are positively related to TWE.

Teamwork Engagement (TWE) and Collective Organizational Engagement COE

Team are the group of two or more people gathered to achieve a common goal. Many authors are agreed on this that team work produced much good result than individuals. In my study I suggested the team work engagement is positively related to collective engagement. In view to JD-R model teams are formed for better result but sometimes they lake in their goals because of lack of the resources and stressed out because of high demands. When teams are assigned specific goals with all the resources they need they will end up into team work engagement which in exchange of these resources lead towards collective organizational engagement.

Most common phenomena we see around us is people always remain in the exchange process it’s the same situation described by the David Levithan “To get something you have to give something”. In the social exchange process firm provide resources to team for better performance these resources can be anything like technology, training or supervisor support safety and environment etc and in exchange or return employees engaged in their work due to which performance increases so we can hypothesis that.

Hypothesis 7: Team Work Engagement are positively related to Collective Organizational Engagement.

Methods

Procedure, Measures and Participants

This part of the article discusses the method and tools used to collect the data. Study were conducted on the bank employees and data was gathers through convenient sampling because of limited resources and time. Data were gathered through questionnaire (Bhatti, 2018; Bhatti et al., 2019). Research is exploratory in nature and contributes towards the literature (Bhatti et al., 2020). Mono Method was used in the data collection process and it is cross sectional as data were collected one time only.

Researcher approaches the bank managers and heads for the distribution of questioner and were gathered later on mentioned time. Questionnaire were distributed after taking proper permission from the concerned person or department.

Respondents were selected through convenient sampling and those respondent were selected who are willing to response at certain period of time, at its geographical proximity (Bhatti et al., 2020). Questionnaire were collected from the different banks located in the Punjab Pakistan. Employees are ask to participate in the research with is free consent.

To ensure the conditionality of the data employees were told that their responses will be kept confidential and will never be associate with their name. 400 Questionnaire distributed among all level of bank employees for the collection of data.

HRM practices and Collective Organizational Engagement were measure on 10 item and 6 item respectively on 5 point likert scale (Barrick et al., 2015). Team work engagement is measured on 7 point Likert scale with 9 items (Costa et al., 2014) and organizational resources with 11 items on 7 point likert scale (Salanova et al., 2005).

Data Analysis procedure were carried out through two most used statistical software. SPSS were used for demographic analysis and data screening. To check the reliability and validity and for measurement model result Smart PLS SEM were used as it describe the maximum variance as other researchers (Bhatti & Rehman, 2019, 2020). More research suggests that if the purpose of research is to identify the new construct PLS-SEM is good option. As sample size were small in the study therefore PLS-SEM are also used where sample size is small and data were non-normal. For Exploratory research type and to extent of the exiting theory testing PLS-SEM is a good option (Hair et al., 2011).

Results

Measure Model Result

Cronbach’s Alpha, Standard deviation, Correlation and Mean value are shown in Table 1. Correlation result is prove significant. Most outer loadings are equal to or greater than 0.70 except few items from HRM practices, organizational resources and collective organizational resources which are dropped to increase the Composite reliability (CR) and Average variance extracted (AVE). Internal Consistent reliability are checked through Composite Reliability values of COE, HRMP, OR and TWE are 0.82, 0.89, 0.90 and 0.92 respectively. Table 2 shows that all AVE values are above 0.50 which demonstrate that latent variable have express the half of variance for its related measures.

Table 1: Mean, Standard Deviation, Correlation And Cronbach’s Alpha
	Variables	Mean	S.D	COE	HR	OR	TWE
1	COE	3.8	0.56	1	-0.71
2	HR	3.29	0.7	0.455**	1	(0.86)
3	OR	3.85	0.63	0.338**	0.404**	1	(0.87)
4	TWE	4.37	0.95	0.614**	0.535**	0.492**	1	-0.91

Table 2: Average Variance Extracted, Composite Reliably And Cronbach’s Alpha
Latent variable	AVE*	CR**	Cronbach’s alpha	Scale
Collective Organizational Engagement	0.54	0.82	0.71	Reflective
HR Practices	0.5	0.89	0.86	Reflective
Organizational Resources	0.5	0.9	0.87	Reflective
Team Work Engagement	0.58	0.92	0.91	Reflective

As Fornell-Lacker criterion values in Table 3 are greater than the latent variable squared correlation that’s mean construct level discriminant validity exist in it. Cross loadings Values in Table 4 are above 0.70 which specify that indicators are reliable. Hence it ensures the indicator level discriminant validity.

Table 3: Fornell-Larcker Criterion
Latent variable	COE	HR	OR	TWE
COE	0.73
HR	0.37	0.71
OR	0.4	0.42	0.71
TWE	0.61	0.55	0.49	0.76

Table 4: Summary of Effect Sizes of F2 and Q2
Relationships	Effect size f2	Effect size q2
HR → COE	0	-0.12
HR →TWE	0.23	0.12
OR → COE	0.02	-0.09
OR → TWE	0.13	0.15
TWE → COE	0.15	-0.21

Structural Model Result Analysis

To identify the significance of relationship bootstrapping procedure were run in PLS software. Path coefficients, significance of path were obtained from the analysis of 1000 subsample bootstrapping procedure. Table 4 showing the results of the bootstrapping

Table 5 showing the value of path coefficient (β) values in the table shows that all hypothesis are supported except second hypothesis. All other hypothesis stated are prove significant like first hypothesis state that Organizational resources has positive relationship with COE. Likewise H3 and H5 states that TWE mediates between OR and COE and between HR and COE prove significant. OR and HR has positive relation with TWE and TWE significantly predict COE are supported.

Table 5: Structural Model: Path Co-Efficient And Hypotheses
Sr. No.	Hypotheses	Relationship	Path	β*	SE*	t-value	p-value	Decision
1	H1	OR → COE	A	0.13	0.05	2.39	0.01	Supported
2	H2	HR → COE	B	0.02	0.06	0.3	0.75	Not Supported
3	H3	OR → TWE → COE	C*E	0.17*	0.03	5.5	0	Supported
4	H4	OR → TWE	C	0.31	0.06	5.15	0	Supported
5	H5	HR → TWE → COE	D*E	0.22*	0.03	5.66	0	Supported
6	H6	HR → TWE	D	0.41	0.04	9.09	0	Supported
7	H7	TWE → COE	E	0.53	0.05	9.72	0	Supported

Results showed the cross validated redundancy for COE is above zero showing that model of the study have predictive relevance (Vinzi,et al., 2010).The value of R2 is 0.38 (To confirm) showing that exogenous variable explains 38% of variation in the teamwork engagement.

Discussion

Engagement at work is very important as it increases the employee productivity and effectiveness of work. This study aimed to investigate predictors of COE. The underlying idea was to provide theoretical and empirical evidence for the predictors of COE and mediating role of TWE.

Results show that relations predicted in the study were proved significant. OR and HRM practices positively predict COE with the mediation of TWE. This implies that OR are the antecedents of COE. This finding provides support to JDRT. As the firm provide resources needed to perform job employees engage in the work and do work efficiently. Resources (Training, Autonomy, and Technology) facilitate employees in the fulfillment of high job demands and engage employees at work. Therefore, the provision of resources enhances COE and instills shared vigor, dedication and absorption among team members. This finding also adds to the body of knowledge by providing empirical evidence for the OR as the antecedent of COE.

HRM practices have direct positive relationship with COE. When organizations invest in the employees and take steps for employee development and wellbeing this will encourage employees to do well for the organization. Such practices (pay equity, job security and other appraisal) engage employees and they work for the organization success and try to achieve the organizational goals. Therefore social exchange process enhances teamwork engagement in a way that every team in the organization become engages and achieves team objectives efficiently. The efficiency and productivity establishing result of COE enhances the firm performance and firms enjoy competitive edge over the competitor who lack in the engagement process.

Conclusions

Current study provides strength to the current stream of knowledge by presenting the antecedents of COE. The results of the study provide support to the gaps identified in literature by research scholars. As discussed, high engagement at team level is one of the predictors of better organizational performance and low levels of COE is the predictor of employee turnover. For this reason, organizations are striving to achieve high COE so that they retain their employees on one hand and achieve better organizational performance on the other hand. With this view in focus the researchers of this study attempted to provide statistical support for the predictors of collective engagement by addressing the gaps found in extant literature. Based on literature and empirical evidence we conclude that when organizations invest in human capital and provide required resources at workplace to satisfy the job demands they perform better and enjoy competitive edge over the competitors through COE.

The core objective of the firm is to achieve firm performance or the financial performance. As the service sector significantly contributes in the economic growth specifically in banking sector this objective can be achieved through the relationship presented in the study Therefore, it is recommended that practitioners/mangers should consider COE as an important variable for the development in the banking sector.

Limitations and Future Research

As this study bring forward the antecedents of COE, this information will benefit managers in many ways. First, importance of TWE is already realized by organizations and the knowledge of its predictors will help managers to focus on sharing positive interpersonal relationships and avoid exchange of negative information and feelings. Second, the knowledge of the predictors of COE will help organizations to implement state of the art HRM practices with the objective of creating COE. Third, equity in HRM practices and provision of OR will create a unique feature for the organization which other organizations will not be able to imitate, ultimately resulting in competitive edge for the organization. Finally, managers should involve first line managers while delineating HR practices because first line managers directly deal with the customers and they can provide valuable information on HR practices and OR.

There are certain limitations of study which calls for certain suggestions that may be taken care of in future research. The study is cross-sectional, that is, the data were collected one point in time, to achieve more valid results data maybe gathered on longitudinal basis. In future, researchers may also use other HR practices and OR for predicting TWE. The data was collected using convenient sampling which is due to the ease of access and availability of respondents. However, future research may employ another sampling technique for better generalization of results (Figure 1).

References

1. Ahmed, S., Ahmad, F.B., &amli; Joarder, M.H.R. (2016). HRM liractices-Engagement-lierformance Relationshilis: A Concelitual Framework for RMG Sector in Develoliing Economy. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 7(4), 87.
2. Bakker, A.B., &amli; Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial lisychology, 22(3), 309-328.
3. Bakker, A.B., &amli; Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Develoliment International, 13(3), 209-223.
4. Barrick, M.R., Thurgood, G.R., Smith, T.A., &amli; Courtright, S.H. (2015). Collective organizational engagement: Linking motivational antecedents, strategic imlilementation, and firm lierformance. Academy of Management Journal, 58(1), 111-135.
5. Bhatti, A. (2018). Consumer liurchase intention effect on online sholiliing behavior with the moderating role of attitude.&nbsli;International Journal Of Academic Management Science Research,&nbsli;2(7), 44-50.
6. Bhatti, A., &amli; Rehman, S.U. (2019). Imliact of Social risk, Government and lisychological Factors with Moderator Cultural Factors on Online Sholiliing Behavior in liakistan.&nbsli;liakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences,&nbsli;7(1), 31-44.
7. Bhatti, A., &amli; Rehman, S.U. (2020). lierceived benefits and lierceived risks effect on online sholiliing behavior with the mediating role of consumer liurchase intention in liakistan.&nbsli;International Journal of Management Studies,&nbsli;26(1), 33-54.
8. Bhatti, A., Rehman, S. U., Akram, H., &amli; Shaheen, M. (2020). The role of Social Media, Advertising and Viral Marketing on Customer Satisfaction. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(8s).
9. Bhatti, A., Saad, S., &amli; Salimon, M.G. (2019). The influence of risks on online sholiliing behaviour in liakistan.
10. Costa, li.L., liassos, A.M., &amli; Bakker, A.B. (2014). Team work engagement: A model of emergence. Journal of Occuliational and Organizational lisychology, 87(2), 414-436.
11. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., &amli; Sarstedt, M. (2011). liLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and liractice, 19(2), 139-152.
12. Huang, Y.H., Lee, J., McFadden, A.C., Murlihy, L.A., Robertson, M.M., Cheung, J.H., &amli; Zohar, D. (2016). Beyond safety outcomes: An investigation of the imliact of safety climate on job satisfaction, emliloyee engagement and turnover using social exchange theory as the theoretical framework. Alililied Ergonomics, 55, 248-257.
13. Kahn, W.A. (1990). lisychological conditions of liersonal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of management journal, 33(4), 692-724.
14. Mäkikangas, A., Aunola, K., Seliliälä, li., &amli; Hakanen, J. (2016). Work engagement–team lierformance relationshili: shared job crafting as a moderator. Journal of Occuliational and Organizational lisychology, 89(4), 772-790.
15. Rich, B.L., Leliine, J.A., &amli; Crawford, E.R. (2010). Job engagement: Antecedents and effects on job lierformance. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3), 617-635.
16. Saks, A.M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of emliloyee engagement. Journal of Managerial lisychology, 21(7), 600-619.
17. Salanova, M., Agut, S., &amli; lieiró, J.M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to emliloyee lierformance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. Journal of Alililied lisychology, 90(6), 12-17.
18. Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martínez, I.M., &amli; Schaufeli, W.B. (2003). lierceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task lierformance among electronic work groulis an exlierimental study. Small Grouli Research, 34(1), 43-73.
19. Schaufeli, W.B., &amli; Bakker, A.B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationshili with burnout and engagement: A multi‐samlile study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.
20. Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B., &amli; Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources liredict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), 893-917.
21. Shaw, J.D., Dineen, B.R., Fang, R., &amli; Vellella, R.F. (2009). Emliloyee-organization exchange relationshilis, HRM liractices, and quit rates of good and lioor lierformers. Academy of Management Journal, 52(5), 1016-1033.
22. Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A., &amli; Ireland, R.D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273-292.
23. Torrente, li., Salanova, M., Llorens, S., &amli; Schaufeli, W. (2012). From “I” to “We”: The factorial validity of e team work engegement scale.
24. Torrente, li., Salanova, M., Llorens, S., &amli; Schaufeli, W.B. (2012). Teams make it work: How team work engagement mediates between social resources and lierformance in teams. lisicothema, 24(1), 106-112.
25. Vinzi, V.E., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., &amli; Wang, H. (2010). Handbook of liartial least squares: Concelits, methods and alililications: Sliringer Science &amli; Business Media.