1

2
3
 4

Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Background.................................................................................5

1.1 Background..........................................................................................................5

1.2 Problem Statement...............................................................................................5

1.3 Objectives of the Study........................................................................................5

1.3.1 General Objectives........................................................................................5

1.3.2 Specific Objectives.......................................................................................5

1.4 Research Questions and Hypotheses...................................................................6

1.4.1 Research Questions.......................................................................................6

1.5 Hypotheses of the Study......................................................................................6

1.6 Significance of the Study.....................................................................................6

2 Literature Review.....................................................................................................7

2.1 Employee Engagement........................................................................................7

2.2 Leadership............................................................................................................7

2.3 Supportive Co-workers........................................................................................7

2.4 Organizational Culture.........................................................................................7

2.5 Workloads............................................................................................................8

2.6 Workplace Satisfaction........................................................................................8

2.7 Conceptual Frame of the Study...........................................................................8

3 Research Methods.....................................................................................................9

3.1 Population Sampling............................................................................................9

3.2 Data Collection Procedures.................................................................................9

3.3 Operationalization Chart......................................................................................9

3.4 Data Analysis Technique...................................................................................11

4 Research Analysis and Findings............................................................................12

4.1 Analysis of Descriptive Statistics......................................................................13

 5

4.2 Analysis of Demographic Profiles of the Respondents.....................................13

4.2.1 Analysis of Gender.....................................................................................13

4.2.2 Analysis of Age..........................................................................................14

4.2.3 Analysis of Income.....................................................................................15

4.2.4 Analysis of Years of Service......................................................................15

4.2.5 Analysis of Designation..............................................................................16

4.2.6 Analysis of Reasons to Join the Company.................................................16

4.3 Analysis of Reliability.......................................................................................16

4.4 Analysis of Validity...........................................................................................17

4.4.1 KMO and Bartlett's Test.............................................................................17

4.4.2 Convergent Validity....................................................................................18

4.4.3 Detection of Autocorrelation......................................................................19

4.4.4 Detection of Multicollinearity....................................................................19

4.4.5 Detection of Linearity.................................................................................20

4.4.6 Detection of Normality...............................................................................20

4.4.7 Detection of Homoscedasticity...................................................................21

4.4.8 Multiple Regression Analysis.....................................................................22

4.4.9 Hypothesis Test..........................................................................................24

5 Conclusion...............................................................................................................26

6 Recommendations...................................................................................................26

7 References................................................................................................................27
 6

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework............................................................................................10

Figure 2: Boxplot after removing Outliers..............................................................................14
Figure 3: Gender......................................................................................................................16
Figure 4: Age...........................................................................................................................16
Figure 5: Income......................................................................................................................17
Figure 6: Years of Service........................................................................................................17
Figure 7: Designation..............................................................................................................18
Figure 8: Reason to Join the Company....................................................................................18
Figure 9: Histogram.................................................................................................................23
Figure 10: Homoscedasticity...................................................................................................24

List of Tables

Table 1: Operationalization Chart...........................................................................................13

Table 2: Outliers and Missing Values......................................................................................14
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics..................................................................................................15
Table 4: Cronbach's Alpha......................................................................................................19
Table 5: KMO Bartlett Test......................................................................................................19
Table 6: Convergent Validity...................................................................................................21
Table 7: Collinearity Statistics.................................................................................................21
Table 8: Linearity.....................................................................................................................22
Table 9: Normality...................................................................................................................23
Table 10: Model Summary.......................................................................................................24
Table 11: ANOVA.....................................................................................................................25
Table 12: Coefficient Table......................................................................................................25
 7

1 Introduction and Background

1.1 Background
Employees are the key source of any organization even in this era of AI as AI has not been
able to fully replace human workers yet. Therefore, the success of the company prevails upon
the employees. Higher the employee engagement, higher the company’s productivity will be
leading to increased efficiency and profits. Employee engagement in organizational tasks not
only depends upon the rules and regulations, employee responsibilities and compensation, but
also depends upon employee mental condition. No matter how efficient the employee is, this
efficiency should pertain continuously and should be enhanced continuously. For this
employee work place satisfaction matters. Work place satisfaction of the employee is the
extent to which the employee is internally happy to work in the company. This cognitive
satisfaction is not that easy to establish as it is subjective and varies with many influential
factors. However, scholars have studies that compensation, leadership style, organizational
culture, coworker support, technical availability, organization’s reputation and goodwill,
training and development opportunities, career growth opportunities and so many other
factors influences the employee satisfaction in the workplace.

This research will be examining the relationship between workplace satisfaction and
employee engagement at John Keels Logistics (Pvt) Ltd. Employee engagement can be
accomplished through the construction of an organizational environment where supportive
feelings such as involvement and pride are fortified, resulting in better organizational
performance, lesser employee turnover and improved health. Engagement is measured by
energy, participation, and effectiveness and this is a directly opposite to the three burnout
dimensions of fatigue, skepticism, and inefficacy.
1.2 Problem Statement

The problem that needs to be looked into is how exactly employee engagement affects
workplace satisfaction at John Keels Logistics (Pvt) Ltd. The company operates in a
dynamic commercial climate, therefore it's critical to determine what factors strengthen or
weaken employee engagement, as this affects representatives' level of job satisfaction. As
per above, this study is important in the expansion of employee engagement limitation and
to find its relationship with job satisfaction.

Therefore, the Research problem is,

What is the Impact of Employee Engagement on Workplace Satisfaction at John Keells
 8

Logistics (Pvt) Ltd?

1.3 Objectives of the Study

1.3.1 General Objectives

To determine how John Keells Logistics (Pvt) Ltd.'s employee engagement affects
workplace satisfaction.
1.3.2 Specific Objectives

1. To measure the current level of employee engagement in the John Keells Logistics
(Pvt) Ltd.

2. Examining the relationship between employee engagement and work place

satisfaction.

3. Identify key drivers of employee engagement that significantly affect work place
satisfaction.

4. Provide practical recommendations for improving both employee engagement and

workplace satisfaction.
1.4 Research Questions and Hypotheses
1.4.1 Research Questions

1. What is the current level of employee engagement in the John Keells Logistics
(Pvt) Ltd under study?
2. How does employee engagement correlate with workplace satisfaction among
employees.
3. What specific aspects of employee engagement have the most significant impact
on workplace satisfaction?
4. What strategies or interventions can be used to improve employee engagement
and workplace satisfaction?
1.5 Hypotheses of the Study

The underlying hypotheses that are developed in the current research and will be
examined with empirical data rely on the conceptual framework and the recognized
variables.

H1: There is a substantial relationship between Employee Engagement and Workplace

Satisfaction at John Keells Logistics (Pvt) Ltd.

H2: There is a substantial effect of Leadership on Workplace Satisfaction at John Keells

 9

Logistics (Pvt) Ltd.

H3: There is a substantial impact of Supportive Co-workers on Workplace Satisfaction at

John Keells Logistics (Pvt) Ltd.

H4: There is a substantial impact of Organizational Culture on Workplace Satisfaction at

John Keells Logistics (Pvt) Ltd.

H5: There is a substantial impact of Workloads on Workplace Satisfaction at John Keells

Logistics (Pvt) Ltd.

1.6 Significance of the Study

John Keells Logistics (Pvt) Ltd able to get an insight about research's knowledge of the
fundamentals inducing workplace satisfaction in order to support employee engagement
practices. By accomplishing this, the company will be able to enhance the working
environment for employees and rise their self-confidence and efficiency. It also
provides the knowledge of this relationship on a larger scale.
2 Literature Review

Using theories and models from Bakker and Leiter (2010) and Kahn (1990), this
literature review investigates the connection between workplace satisfaction and
employee engagement. Together with looking at variables affecting job happiness, it
seeks to comprehend the theoretical underpinnings of employee engagement. Employee
engagement is the psychological and emotional commitment workers have to their jobs,
according to Kahn (1990). Proposing the Job Demands-Resources model (2010),
Bakker and Leiter highlight the importance of job resources in engagement. Regarding
job satisfaction, Spector (1997) and Locke (1976) offer valuable perspectives.
2.1 Employee Engagement

Kahn (1990) defined worker engagement as the mental and passionate association
people have in their work roles, characterized by purpose, excitement, and commitment.
The positive correlation between this concept and both individual and organizational
success has made it a major contribution to organizational brain study and governance.
2.2 Leadership

A foundation of engaged employees may be effective leadership. According to

Eisenbeiss, Knippenberg, and Boerner (2008), transformational leadership has been
 10

consistently linked to increased levels of employee engagement. Transformational

leadership is typified by idealized impact, psychological encouragement, moral
inspiration, and individualized thought (Bass, 1985). Staff engagement and satisfaction
are greatly increased by leaders who can clearly express their vision, offer assistance,
and create a happy work environment.
2.3 Supportive Co-workers

Connections among coworkers have an established effect on employee satisfaction and

engagement. Engagement is improved by social return, which is defined by belief,
involvement, and companionship in the workplace (Eisenberger,, Stinglhamber,
Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). Consistent colleagues create a supportive
work atmosphere that encourages teamwork and a sense of belonging, which raises job
satisfaction.
2.4 Organizational Culture

Worker engagement and fulfillment are greatly influenced by organizational culture;

greater degrees of engagement are associated with a positive culture that prioritizes
growth, well-being, and a common goal (Denison, 1990). Employee engagement and
satisfaction with the workplace are higher when they perceive a fit between the
organization's culture and their own values.
2.5 Workloads

Even though they are often thought of as a possible cause of stress, workloads can,
under the right circumstances, have an impact on satisfaction and engagement.
According to Bakker and Demerouti (2007) job demands-resources, the combination of
challenging work, and sufficient support can enhance employee engagement. It has a
significant impact on employees' job satisfaction when they feel adequately prepared to
deal with their workloads.
2.6 Workplace Satisfaction

Satisfaction with one's work, organizational commitment, and general well-being are all
included in the working environment (Spector, Job satisfaction: Application,
assessment, causes, and consequences, 1997). One important result in the environment
of worker engagement that is influenced by the interchange of various elements is
worker satisfaction.
2.7 Conceptual Frame of the Study
 11

The conceptual framework would govern the process of identifying variables and
developing hypotheses

Employee Engagement

Leadership H2

H3 Workplace Satisfaction
Supportive Co-workers
H1
Organizational Culture H4

Workloads H5

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

Source: Literature
 12

3 Research Methods

As this a quantitative study, which will expect to identify and evaluate the
relationship between workplace satisfaction and employee engagement at John Keels
Logistics (Pvt) Ltd.
3.1 Population and Sampling

The population of this study is employees of the John Keels Logistics (Pvt) Ltd.
Sample size will be 152 that contribute to obtain information and date through A fully
structured survey. The research will adopt 95% confidence level for the analysis. Hence,
the minimum requirement for the sample is calculated via xxx as follows.

3.2 Data Collection Procedures

A questionnaire survey will be used to collect both demographic information and

details relating to the dependent and independent variable.

3.3 Operationalization Chart

Method
Variable Type Variable Statement/ Indicator Question
of
Number
Analysis
Independent Leaders usually maintains a L 01
Variable direct relationship with
employees.
(Employee
Leaders empowers employees L 02
Engagement)
to work towards one vision Five Point
Leadership
rather than dictating them. Likert Scale
Communication skills of the L 03
leaders are very high which
increases the employee
engagement more.
Supportive Group coherence in the Five Point SC 01
Co- workers company is very high. Likert Scale
Employees are accountable, SC 02
 13

where they carry out their

portion of work responsibly.
Employees communicate and SC 03
collaborate together to get a
task done rather than
competing with one another.

Occupational safety is
ensured to a higher level OC 01
by the management.
Flat hierarchical structure
is encouraged where there
Organizational are no by-the-book rules, Five Point
OC 02
Culture but accepts new ideas, Likert Scale
creativity of the
employees.
Learning culture is
encouraged rather than a OC 03
cut- throat culture.
Management equally
allocate workload among W 01
the workforce.
No employee is over
Five Point
Workloads working compared to other W 02
Likert Scale
workers.
Every employee is paid
proportionately for the W 03
work they do.
Employee turnover rate
Dependent and absenteeism rates are WS 01
Variable Workplace very low. Five Point
Satisfaction Employees work Likert Scale
WS 02
voluntarily when the
 14

deadlines are closer, and

the company runs out of
time.
Everyone love the
company and proud to say
that they are working for WS 03
John keels Logistics with
their friends.
Employees are satisfied
with compensation,
WS 04
organizational culture and
co-workers as a whole.

Table 1: Operationalization Chart

Source: Literature

3.4 Data Analysis Technique

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software will be used to analyze the
collected primary data by using different analysis methods like frequencies, correlation tests,
t-tests and simple regression.
3.5 Pilot Test
Before conducting the actual analysis, a pilot test was conducted using 40 responses to figure
out the basic relationship between the above chosen dimensions and the work place
satisfaction among the employees. Executive level employees were taken as respondents
here.
The results of the pilot test shows significant positive relationship between the leadership
style and worker satisfaction, co-worker supportiveness and worker satisfaction, workload
and worker satisfaction and finally between the organizational culture and worker
satisfaction.
 15

4 Research Analysis and Findings

The collected data was extracted into an excel sheet and fortunately, there were no missing
values found among the data set. A total of 158 responses were collected and ran through the
boxplot test in SPSS to figure out the outliers. Accordingly, all the four independent variables
as well as the dependent variables consisted of data outliers. However, the leadership had
only 3 outliers in it. All the outliers were deleted and the valid number of responses were
taken for the analysis. Accordingly, the following number of valid responses remained after
removing the outliers.
Variable Valid Missing Total
N % N % N %
Co-Workers 145 91.8% 13 8.2% 158 100%
Organizational Culture 141 89.2% 17 10.8% 158 100%
Workload 142 89.9% 16 10.1% 158 100%
Leadership 152 96.2% 6 3.8% 158 100%
Work Satisfaction 152 96.2% 6 3.8% 158 100%
Table 2: Outliers and Missing Values
Source: Survey Data 2024

The boxplots for the adjusted variables can be depicted as follows.

Figure 2: Boxplot after removing Outliers

 16

Source: Survey Data 2024

4.1 Analysis of Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics are analyzed to observe the characteristics and the pattern of the data.
There are mainly two types of measures under descriptive statistics which are measures of
central tendency and measures of variation (Hayes, 2023). Under measures of central
tendency, the mean, mode, median are calculated and under the measures of variation,
standard deviation, variance, minimum and maximum are calculated.

N Mean Std. Deviation

Statistic Statistic Statistic
Coworkers 145 3.7655 0.40230
Organizational Culture 141 3.8241 0.38133
workload 142 3.7923 0.44747
Work_Satisfaction 152 3.9184 0.51487
Leadership 152 3.7224 0.41880
Valid N (listwise) 127
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics
Source: Survey Data 2024

The above table shows the mean and standard deviation of the dependent and independent
variables. Mean value shows the average All the variables showcase mean values over 3.5
which shows the average agreeableness of the respondents to all the dimensions of each
variable. Further, the standard deviation depicts how far the data have been scattered around
the mean value of each variable. All the standard deviation values range between 0.38 - 0.51
which shows that there is no extreme outliers in the data set.

4.2 Analysis of Demographic Profiles of the Respondents

4.2.1 Analysis of Gender
 17

Majority of the respondents are males

accounting for 63.29% of a percentage.
36.71% of the respondents account for
females. Therefore, there is a significant
difference in the male and female ratio
among the respondents.

Figure 3: Gender
Source: Survey Data 2024

4.2.2 Analysis of Age

Majority of the respondents are

between the age group of 25 and 35.
The minority of the respondents are
above the age 55. Further, the
respondents from age 35-45 group and
below 25 group holds significant
portions of participants accounting for
30.38% and 13.29%.

Figure 4: Age
Source: Survey Data 2024
 18

4.2.3 Analysis of Income

The bar chart represents the income of the

research participants. Maximum number of
participants earn an income between
LKR25000 and LKR125000. The
minimum number of respondents
accounting for 1.9% earns an income
above LKR425,000. A significant portion
of participants earn an income below
LKR25000 and between LKR125,000 and
LKR225,000

Figure 5: Income
Source: Survey Data 2024

4.2.4 Analysis of Years of Service

The highest number amounting to 52.5% of

the respondents have worked in the Keels
between 6 to 10 years. The lowest portion
of respondents have worked more than 15
years in the company and this portion
accounts for 5.7%.

Figure 6: Years of Service

Source: Survey Data 2024

4.2.5 Analysis of Designation

 19

The highest number of participants works

as executives while the lowest number of
participants works as department heads.

Figure 7: Designation
Source: Survey Data 2024

4.2.6 Analysis of Reasons to Join the Company

The highest number of participants have

joined keels because it is a subsidiary of the
best conglomerates in the country whilst
only 4.4% of the respondents have joined
the company because they had no other
options.

Figure 8: Reason to Join the Company

Source: Survey Data 2024

4.3 Analysis of Reliability

Reliability is the internal consistency of the data set. Cronbach’s Alpha is used to measure the
reliability of each variable (Haji-Othman & Yusuff, 2022).

Variable Number of Cronbach’s Accepted/

Items Alpha Rejected
Coworkers 6 0.836 Accepted
Organizational Culture 5 0.820 Accepted
 20

Workload 6 0.870 Accepted

Work Satisfaction 5 0.817 Accepted
Leadership 5 0.696 Accepted
Table 4: Cronbach's Alpha
Source: Survey Data 2024

According to the rule of thumb, the Cronbach’s alpha value should be at least 0.7 for the data
set to be highly internally consistent. All the above variables exceed the threshold alpha value
except the leadership. However, the leadership also depicts a very close value to 0.7 which is
acceptable. Therefore, all the variables are considered to be reliable.
4.4 Analysis of Validity
Validity measures whether the data set evaluates what it originally intends to analyse. To
measure this, a factor analysis is conducted where the KMO and Bartlett’s test evaluates for
the adequacy of sample sizes and the significance of the model (Hamid, 2017) . Whist the
factor loadings, composite reliability and average variance extracted represents the
convergent validity of the data set.
4.4.1 KMO and Bartlett's Test

KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.855

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1565.943

df 10
Sig. 0.000

Table 5: KMO Bartlett Test

Source: Survey Data 2024

The KMO test depicts a sampling adequacy level of 0.855 which is higher than the threshold
level of 0.7. Therefore, the sample size is highly adequate. Further, the significant value of
the model is 0.000 which is less than 0.05. therefore, the results generated from the model is
considered to be significant.

4.4.2 Convergent Validity

Convergent validity is measured via factor loading values, composite reliability and average
variance extracted value.
 21

Construct Indicators Factor Composite Average

Loadings Reliability Variance
(CR) Extracted
(AVE)
Leadership L1 0.725 0.853 0.538
L2 0.730
L3 0.741
L4 0.659
L5 0.806
Work Load W1 0.687 0.733 0.327
W2 0.595
W3 0.508
W4 0.316
W5 0.727
W6 0.502
Organizational OC1 0.623 0.795 0.439
Culture OC2 0.615
OC3 0.743
OC4 0.62
OC5 0.701
Co- Workers WL1 0.754 0.874 0.539
WL2 0.773
WL3 0.689
WL4 0.801
WL5 0.69
WL6 0.69
Work Place WS1 0.755 0.791 0.440
Satisfaction WS2 0.561
WS3 0.706
WS4 0.466
WS5 0.774
Table 6: Convergent Validity
 22

Source: Survey Data 2024

The threshold value according to the study of Hair, et al., (2014) is 0.7 for the composite
reliability (CR) whilst the threshold value for average variance extracted (AVE) is 0.5. all the
above composite reliability values depict values greater than 0.7. further, all the above AVE
values represent values greater than or equal to 0.5 except one variable. Therefore, it is clear
that the data set outlines the convergent validity.
4.4.3 Detection of Autocorrelation
Autocorrelation is the correlation between the same variable between two lagging time
intervals. If there is an autocorrelation exits, it is considered to be an error.

Durbin Watson Statistic = 1. 448

Durbin Watson statistics measures the autocorrelation. the rule of thumb is that if the Durbin
Watson statistics is either 2 or closer to 2, there is no autocorrelation. The above statistic is
also closer to 2, therefore, no extreme autocorrelation cases exist.

4.4.4 Detection of Multicollinearity

Multicollinearity is the correlation between the independent variables in the model. This is
measured using variance inflation factor (VIF) (Ros-Gálvez, 2016).

Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
Coworkers 0.548 1.825
Organizational Culture 0.588 1.700
Workload 0.763 1.311
Leadership 0.677 1.478
Table 7: Collinearity Statistics
Source: Survey Data 2024

According to the standards, a VIF value greater than 10 causes significant concern. A value
less than that shows no multicollinearity. Therefore, all the above variables are free from
multicollinearity.
 23

4.4.5 Detection of Linearity

Table 8: Linearity
Source: Survey Data 2024

Linearity is whether the data set walks on a linear path. The above P P Plot of regression
standardized residuals shows the data is scattered very closer to the middle line. Therefore,
the data set is linear.
4.4.6 Detection of Normality
Normality is the frequency distribution of the variables. Skewness and kurtosis measures
whether the data set is left skewed, right skewed or else normally distributed.

Variables Skewness Kurtosis

Statistic Std. Error Statistic Std. Error
Coworkers -0.092 0.201 -0.140 0.400
Organizational Culture 0.358 0.204 -0.330 0.406
workload 0.285 0.203 -0.410 0.404
Work Satisfaction 0.303 0.197 -0.598 0.391
Leadership -0.030 0.197 -0.039 0.391
 24

Table 9: Normality
Source: Survey Data 2024

The standard range for skewness is between -3 and +3 whilst the standard range for kurtosis
lies between -10 and +10 (University of Cambridge, 2018). All the independent and
dependent variables lie within this acceptable range. Therefore, the data set can assume to be
normally distributed. This can further be assessed via histograms.
Each histogram is normally distributed where a symmetrical and bell-shaped curve is
distributed to the both ends of the histogram as follows.

Figure 9: Histogram
Source: Survey Data 2024
4.4.7 Detection of Homoscedasticity

Figure 10: Homoscedasticity

Source: Survey Data 2024
 25

Homoscedasticity represents the homogeneity of the variance of residuals or error terms. The
data set should be homoscedastic in order to run the regression analysis. Homoscedasticity is
tested via the simple scatter plot of homoscedasticity. The chart does not show any pattern in
its data scattered (National Institute of Standard and Technology, 2023). Therefore, the
homoscedasticity exists.

4.4.8 Multiple Regression Analysis

Multiple regression analysis measures the relationship between the chosen set of independent
variables and the dependent variables. The SPSS output of multiple regression consists of the
model summary, ANOVA test and the coefficients table.

Adjusted R Std. Error of Durbin-

Model R R Square Square the Estimate Watson
1 0.639a 0.408 0.389 0.35771 1.448
a. Predictors: (Constant), Leadership, workload, Organizational Culture,
Coworkers
b. Dependent Variable: Work_Satisfaction
Table 10: Model Summary
Source: Survey Data 2024

R squared value depicts how much variance in the work satisfaction is explained by the
independent variables in the model. R squared value here is 40.8%. Therefore, 40.8% of the
variation in the work satisfaction is explained by the leadership, workload, coworkers and the
organizational culture. The adjusted r squared depicts the adjusted value for the errors. The
value depicts a 38.9% showing that 38.9% of the variation in the work satisfaction is
explained by the independent variables in the study.

Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 10.779 4 2.695 21.061 0.000b
Residual 15.610 122 0.128
Total 26.390 126
 26

a. Dependent Variable: Work Satisfaction

b. Predictors: (Constant), Leadership, workload, Organizational Culture, Coworkers
Table 11: ANOVA
Source: Survey Data 2024

Analysis of variance test depicts the F test and the significance of the F test. F test also
measures the overall significance of the model. Hence the p value of the ANOVA test is
0.000<0.05, the overall model can be considered significant.

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 0.657 0.416 1.580 0.117
Coworkers 0.159 0.118 0.126 1.340 0.183
Organizational Culture 0.064 0.114 0.051 0.559 0.577
workload 0.558 0.085 0.525 6.587 0.000
Leadership 0.075 0.104 0.061 0.723 0.471

a. Dependent Variable: Work Satisfaction

Table 12: Coefficient Table
Source: Survey Data 2024

The above table shows the coefficient of each independent variable and their significant
values. The constant value of the model is 0.657. this depicts that the work satisfaction of the
employees will vary by 0.657 to the positive direction when all other variables are held
constant. However, the p value of the constant is 0.117 which is lower than the significance
level (5%). Therefore, the constant is not significant.

The coefficient of coworkers is 0.159. this depicts that the work satisfaction of the employees
will increase by 0.159 when the co-worker variable increases by 1 unit. However, the p value
of the variable is 0.183 which is greater than the 5% significant value. Therefore, co-worker
variable does not have a statistically significant relationship with work satisfaction.

The coefficient of organizational culture is 0.064. this depicts that the work satisfaction of the
employees will increase by 0.064 when the organizational culture increases by 1 unit.
 27

However, the p value of the variable is 0.577 which is greater than the 5% significant value.
Therefore, organizational culture variable does not have a statistically significant relationship
with work satisfaction.

The coefficient of workload is 0.558. This depicts that the work satisfaction of the employees
will increase by 0.558 when the workload increases by 1 unit. However, the p value of the
variable is 0.000 which is less than the 5% significant value. Therefore, the workload has a
statistically significant relationship with work satisfaction.

The coefficient of leadership is 0.075. This depicts that the work satisfaction of the
employees will increase by 0.075 when the leadership increases by 1 unit. However, the p
value of the variable is 0.471 which is less than the 5% significant value. Therefore, the
leadership does not have a statistically significant relationship with work satisfaction.

According to the above interpretation, the regression equation can be developed as follows.

WS = 0.558WL

4.4.9 Hypothesis Test

The P value of F test is 0.000< 0.05. Hence, the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected and the
alternative hypothesis (H1) is accepted. Therefore,

H1: There is a substantial relationship between Employee Engagement and

Workplace Satisfaction at John Keels Logistics (Pvt) Ltd.

The P value of leadership is 0.471>0.05. Hence, the null hypothesis (H0) is accepted
and the alternative hypothesis (H2) is rejected. Therefore,

H2: There is no substantial effect of Leadership on Workplace Satisfaction at John

Keels Logistics (Pvt) Ltd.

The P value of supportive co-workers is 0.183>0.05. Hence, the null hypothesis (H0) is
accepted and the alternative hypothesis (H3) is rejected. Therefore,

H3: There is no substantial impact of Supportive Co-workers on Workplace

Satisfaction at John Keels Logistics (Pvt) Ltd.
 28

The P value of Organizational Culture is 0.577>0.05. Hence, the null hypothesis (H0) is
accepted and the alternative hypothesis (H4) is rejected. Therefore,

H4: There is no substantial impact of Organizational Culture on Workplace

Satisfaction at John Keels Logistics (Pvt) Ltd

The P value of Workload is 0.577>0.05. Hence, the null hypothesis (H0) is rejected and
the alternative hypothesis (H5) is accepted. Therefore,
H5: There is a substantial impact of Workloads on Workplace Satisfaction at John
Keels Logistics (Pvt) Ltd.
 29

5 Conclusion
The major purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of employee engagement levels for
the workplace satisfaction of the employees at John Keels Logistics Pvt Ltd. Even though
there were bunch of empirical evidences regarding employee engagement and workplace
satisfaction from the Sri Lankan as well as the other regions, only a few of the researchers
have targeted this subject on a company level. Specially, the literature relevant to logistics
industry is lacking. Therefore, this research study tends to cover an important empirical
research gap. After a comprehensive review of literature, the writer recognized few of the
common dimensions that the previous scholars have used to measure employee engagement.
After a thorough evaluation, four major variables which are leadership, workloads, co-
workers and the organizational culture has been chosen to measure the employee
engagement. Majority of the literature have used these dimensions to measure the employee
engagement. Quantitative methodology has been used to conduct the analysis where the data
collection was conducted using a structured questionnaire with multiple choice and five-
point-likert scale questions. The population is the employees of john keels logistics pvt. ltd.
whereas a sample of 158 was chosen to get the responses. The privacy and confidentiality of
the responses was assured to all the responses and they have been allowed to withdraw their
response at any time.
After collecting structured data from 158 respondents, the responses were cleaned for missing
values and the outliers. The final valid responses remained was only 127 after the data
cleaning process. However, the demographic profiles of the respondents and the descriptive
statistics were analyzed for the total sample size. Further, the reliability and validity of the
data set was tested and the regression assumptions has been evaluated before running the
regression analysis. Accordingly, the linearity, autocorrelation, homoscedasticity.
Multicollinearity and the normality have been assessed. Based on that the regression analysis
was run. The study depicts that workload has a significant positive impact towards the work
place satisfaction of the employees. However, the empirical evidences are a bit contradictory
from these findings where they show a negative significant relationship between workload
and the work place satisfaction. Moreover, the scholars have shown that the organizational
culture have a positive impact, co-worker supportiveness has a positive impact as well as the
leadership has a positive impact towards the work place satisfaction. However, according to
the current study, all other three independent variables does not show a significant impact.
Therefore, the final conclusions of this research can assume to be a bit contradictory when
compared with the existing literature.
 30

Therefore, further research into the relationship between these dimensions are required.

6 Recommendations
6.1 Workload Reduction
Logistics industry is renowned for its high work load with the e-commerce. With increased
international trading, the logistics industry has faced an increased work load where they need
to collect the packages, check, package, load, insert into the system, assign tracking numbers
and many more tasks in between until the package is delivered to the end customer. Several
recommendations can be suggested to reduce the workload in the logistics industry such as
computerizing the process and using specific software for the recording of transaction.
Further, introducing QR code systems combined with AI which automatically detect the
incoming and outgoing packages and record them automatically can be occupied in the
workplace. Robot workers can be assigned for packaging, labelling and other consistent
tasks. Further, seasonal employee hiring can be done temporary to address the increased
demand. This way, the employee satisfaction will remain unwavery.
6.2 Supportive Co-Workers
Co-worker supportiveness is the key to a well performed organization. Therefore, the
company can establish an ethics and a value system among the employees to enhance the
team coherence. Further, workshops, festivals, entertainments, sport sessions can be
conducted where all the employees will be working as team members together. This will
crate an unwavering bond between employees which will be a plus point when working in the
organization. Encouraging the good relationship between every department and co-workers
will enhance the efficiency of the company further.
6.3 Leadership
Hiring good leaders with better and adaptable leadership skills will help the company to
thrive amidst the market dynamics. Hiring flexible and adaptable leaders who are sensitive
towards the employees, providing leadership training, continuous update of the market
dynamics, developing the leader- employee bond will help to boost worker satisfaction within
the company.
6.4 Organizational Culture

The world is developing and the management technics are also changing. The latest studies
have found that encouraging an open and democratic organizational culture will boost the
employee satisfaction in the work place as they can directly access their managers and
 31

superiors. Further, the chain of command will reduce, authoritative structure will change,
bureaucracy will prevail only for necessary tasks only. Motivational programs, encouraging
new ideas, innovation and creativity will further boost employee satisfaction.
 32

7 References

Bakker, A. & Demerouti, E., 2007. The Job Demands‐Resources model: state of the art.
Journal of Managerial Psychology , pp. 309-328.
Bakker, A. & Leiter, M., 2010. Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and
research. s.l.: Psychology Press..
Bass, B., 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. s.l.:Free Press..
Denison, D., 1990. Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness.. s.l.:John Wiley &
Sons..
Eisenbeiss, S., Knippenberg, D. & Boerner, S., 2008. Transformational leadership and team
innovation: Integrating team climate principles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), p.
1438–1446..
Eisenberger, ,. R. et al., 2002. Perceived supervisor support: Contributions to perceived
organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied Psychology,, 87(3), p.
565–573.
Haji-Othman, Y. & Yusuff, M. S. S., 2022. Assessing Reliability and Validity of Attitude
Construct Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM).
International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 12(5), p. 378 –
385..
Hamid, M. R. A., 2017. Discriminant Validity Assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker
criterion versus HTMT Criterion. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Volume 890, pp. 1-
6.
Hayes, A., 2023. Descriptive Statistics: Definition, Overview, Types, Example. [Online]
Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/descriptive_statistics.asp
[Accessed 14 August 2023].
Kahn, W., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), pp. 692-724.
Locke, E., 1976. The nature and causes of job satisfaction.. In Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, pp. 1297-1349.
National Institute of Standard and Technology, 2023. Scatter Plot: Variation of Y Does Not
Depend on X (homoscedastic). In: Engineering Statisics HandBook. s.l.:National Institute of
Standard and Technology.
Ros-Gálvez, A., 2016. Multicollinearity issues: is a value less than 10 acceptable for VIF?.
[Online]
 33

Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Multicollinearity_issues_is_a_value_less_than_10_accepta
ble_for_VIF
[Accessed 19 sEPTEMBER 2023].
Spector, P., 1997. Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences.. s.l.:
Sage Publications..
University of Cambridge, 2018. Testing normality including skewness and kurtosis. [Online]
Available at: https://imaging.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/statswiki/FAQ/Simon#:~:text=Hair%20et
%20al.,between%20%E2%80%907%20to%20%2B7.
[Accessed 19 September 2023].