40DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS IN CORPORATE MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN RURAL DESTINATIONS
Nenad Vunjak1, Aleksandra Vujko2, Milos Dragosavac3, Tamara Antonijevic4 *Corresponding author E-mail: aleksandravujko@yahoo.com
A R T I C L E I N F O
Original Article
Received: 03 August 2020
Accepted: 27 October 2020
doi:10.5937/ekoPolj2004087V
UDC 519.22+347.191.11]:338.48-44(1-22)
Keywords:
rural destinations, employee engagement; descriptive statistics, corporate management, Fruska Gora mountain
JEL: E24, C10, O15, R11
A B S T R A C T
Organizations that hope to achieve a competitive advantage through employee engagement will be most successful by incorporating and including employee engagement in the performance management process. Therefore, essence of the performance management must to be convergence to employees and establish communication with each one. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between employee engagement (assessment of employee competencies and preferences of the engagement mechanisms), and performance management process in rural destinations. In this paper, the assumption is that the employee are more engaged if they feels belonging to the organization and see the value of their work and that this can be achieved through rewards and recognition system and effective communication channels. The research was conducted on 79 employeed in the Fruska Gora National Park, Serbia.
© 2020 EA. All rights reserved.
Introduction
The motives are the engine of human activity. They are directed a human activity in a certain direction. Motivation is often defined as the process of excitation of its
1 Nenad Vunjak, Academic, Full Professor, Modern Business School (Terazije 27/4,Belgrade 11000, Serbia); Faculty of Business Economics (Semberskih ratara bb, Bijeljina 76300, Bosnia & Herzegovina); Phone: +381 63 505255, E-mail: vunjakn@gmail.com; ORCID ID (0000-0001-9949-2532)
2 Aleksandra Vujko, Ass. Professor, University of Business Studies, Faculty of Tourism and Hotel Management (Jovana Ducica 23a, Banja Luka 78000, Republic of Srpska); European University, Faculty of European Business and Marketing (Vojvode Dobrnjca 15, Belgrade 11000, Serbia); Phone: +381 64 914 2645, E-mail: aleksandravujko@yahoo.com; ORCID ID (0000-0001-8684-4228)
3 Milos Dragosavac, Ass. Professor, Modern Business School (Terazije 27/4,Belgrade 11000, Serbia); Phone: +381 63 172 39 36; E-mail: milos.dragosavac@mbs.edu.rs, ORCID ID (0000-0001-9216-8406)
4 Tamara Antonijevic, MA, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of Economics Subotica (Segedinski put 9-11, Subotica 24 000, Serbia), Phone:+381 69 2131788, E-mail:kockica024@gmail.com.
activities and other activities in order to achieve personal goals, and the goals of the system. It is believed that motivation is the result of the following hierarchy of needs: the need for self-actualization, the need for self-esteem, social needs, security needs and physiological needs. Motivation is an important factor which actuates a driving force for our actions and work. Baron (1983) explains that motivation represents a cumulation of various processes that impact and direct our behavior in order to achieve some specific goal. It explicitly creates and contains a positive effect on job, as it is such a dynamic in today's environment.
In a particular organization, it is possible to achieve the best performance with the most dedicated employees through employee motivation. Motivation and satisfaction of employees become the basis of modern organization. Emphasis is placed on the active management of their resources, and in the context of improving the use of human factors are developed various schemes to increase the motivation to work. Thereby it focuses particularly on job satisfaction as a significant indicator of employee motivation, the job stimulating and the total dimensions of the work.
This brings us to the concept of engagement. Engagement means that a person is psychologically present when he or she performs a certain role in an organization (Kahn, 1990, Kahn, 1992). People will be attentive, connected, integrated, and focused if they are psychologically present (Kahn, 1992). Therefore, it could be said that the roots of all human motives lie in pleasure. This paper started from the main hypothesis H: employee engagement is a key item for productivity. Based on the fact that the goals of every business enterprise are achieving better business results, the concept of a performance management process is arrived at. In order for a company to be successful it must respect the economic principles that define business success as the ratio between the target and the invested resources.
Therefore, in order for a company to be successful it must have "satisfied" employees by which are entitled some of the most important principles of success: productivity, efficiency, profitability and financial stability. The aim of this study is to determine the relationship between employee engagement and performance management process in the Fruska Gora National Park, Serbia. Keeping in mind specificity of national parks as an institution, in this case, the proposed engagement of employees is much more pronounced.
For the purposes ofthis research, survey was used as a method, whereby 79 questionnaires were analyzed. The participants were employees in the Fruska Gora National Park.
Theoretical Background
One variable that has been receiving increasing attention as a key determinant of performance is employee engagement (Macey et al., 2009). Employee engagement enables employees to completely fulfil job requirements while expressing their preferred selves (Kahn, 1990). This means that people who are engaged keep their selves when performing their professional duties. In other words, engagement means that employees show a high level of energy and identification with their work, but do not reach a point of
burnout, because that involves a low level of both energy and identification (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Bakker, Demerouti & Verbeke, 2004; Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). People who are engaged are committed to their tasks, cognitively alert, and passionately connected to others in ways that show their individuality (e.g., how they feel, what their thoughts and values are, etc.).
Different factors in the work environment are related to employee engagement. The question is how organizations can improve employee engagement? Due to the economic challenges in the modern world, organizations have tried to improve employee engagement by focusing on performance management (Buchner, 2007). Performance management is a crucial aspect of the effectiveness in an organization (Cardy, 2004). Due to the fact that performance management is an important process through which work is accomplished, it is the "Achilles Heel" of human capital management, which is why it should be managers' main priority (Gruman & Saks, 2011).
But less than a third of employees think that their performance depends on their company's performance management process. In addition, employee satisfaction surveys show that employees regularly rank performance management among the lowest topics (Gruman & Saks, 2011). Due to modern challenges, many organizations have decided to refocus their attention on performance management systems (Buchner, 2007) and find ways to boost employee performance. Employee engagement was described and measured as satisfaction, commitment, and discretionary effort in a paper that was recently published (Fine, Horowitz, Weigler, & Basis, 2010).
Kahn (1992) and Macey et al. (2009) models of employee engagement indicate the following: there is a state and behavioral dimension of employee engagement, the state of employee engagement precedes the behavioral dimension and leads to it. Performance outcomes directly depend on engagement behaviors. There are several theories and models in the literature which suggest how to improve employee engagement. Mone and London (2010) advise to design the performance management process that will stimulate employee engagement and trigger better performances. Factors that improve employee engagement may differ from those that were related to traditional employee outcomes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Macey et al., 2009), since this is a relatively new concept (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
Much attention has been given to employee engagement in the last five years, especially in consulting firms and the popular press. Many consider it to be a crucial factor when it comes to the success and competitiveness of an organization. Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) suggest that engagement is "essential" for contemporary organizations because they are facing a lot of challenges. Macey et al. (2009) believe that organizations' competitive advantage depends on employee engagement. Many researchers note that employee engagement is the leading factor that influences attitudes, behavior, and performance of employees, as well as performance, productivity, retention, financial performance, and even shareholder return of an organization (Bates, 2004; Baumruk, 2004; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Richman, 2006).
Macey and Schneider (2008) state that this concept has many definitions, but it is a common opinion that employee engagement is beneficial, it has an organizational purpose and combines psychological and behavioral factors since it involves energy, enthusiasm, and focused effort. Harter, Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) define employee engagement as "the individual's involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work" (p. 269). Leiter and Maslach (1998) define engagement as the opposite pole of burnout (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Bakker, Demerouti & Verbeke, 2004). The definition of engagement that they provided is "an energetic experience of involvement with personally fulfilling activities that enhance a staff member's sense of professional efficacy" (Leiter & Maslach, 1998; Gruman & Saks, 2011 ) and they believe that engagement is a combination of energy, involvement, and efficacy (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).
Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker (2002) believe that the concept of engagement is the opposite of burnout. However, they believe that these concepts are independent states which do not have a similar structure, so different instruments are used to measure them. They view engagement as "a positive fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption" (p. 74). Rothbard (2001) also states that a key component of engagement is absorption (attention is the other component). Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) state that being completely absorbed in a role is similar to the concept of "flow" which was introduced by Csikszentmihalyi (1990) (Gruman & Saks, 2011). They believe that these concepts differ in a way that engagement is a persistent work state while flow is more complex as it involves momentary peak experiences which do not have to take place at work. According to Schaufeli and Salanova (2007), engaged employees are energetically and effectively connected to their work. Investing one's "self' in work-related activities can lead to this (Gruman & Saks, 2011).
It is stated in Kahn's (1990) paper on personal engagement that engagement includes "the harnessing of organizational members' selves to their work roles; in engagement people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances" (p. 694). According to him, there are three psychological conditions of personal engagement which show that people enter contracts when they see clear benefits (psychological meaningfulness), protective guarantees (psychological safety), and resources to honor (psychological availability). Employees have implicit and/or explicit expectations from an organization (Rousseau, 1990; Gruman & Saks, 2011). Those expectations can be the basis of psychological contracts between employees and employers which includes reciprocal obligations (Rousseau, 1990). Banks and May (1999) claim that for stable jobs which include following procedures that are easily observable, it is possible to apply the traditional approach to performance assessment.
On the other hand, contemporary jobs are not as static as traditional ones (Singh, 2008). The definition of a job and good performance varies nowadays (Fletcher & Perry, 2001). Fletcher and Perry (2001) claim that performance has a multidimensional and dynamic nature which can be measured with the development of notions such as emotional
intelligence (Goleman, 1998; Gruman & Saks, 2011) and the difference between task performance and contextual performance (Borman & Motowildo, 1993; Gruman & Saks, 2011). Concepts that can also be used to measure performance are adaptability (Pulakos, Arad, Donovan, & Plamondon, 2000), creativity (Tierney & Farmer, 2002), and proactivity (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Grant & Ashford, 2008), as these are the outcomes of behavioral engagement (Macey et al., 2009).
The research methodology
Study area
Fruska Gora is a mountain in the northern part of Srem (South-western Vojvodina) i.e. south-eastern periphery of the vast Pannonian Plain. It is located between 45° 00' and 45° 15' north latitude and between 16° 37' and 18° 01' east longitude. The surface of Fruska Gora Mountain is 21,500 km2, which makes 24.3% of the whole territory of the Republic of Serbia (Burdev, Arsenovic & Dragin, 2010). The mountain is mostly situated in Srem, in Serbia. But, as this part of Vojvodina lies between the Danube and the Sava rivers, there is a small part of Fruska Gora in the far west which is located in Croatia (Bukurov, 1978).
Fruska Gora is 80 km long in the west-east direction. It is very beneficial for the development of sport and recreational tourism (Jovicic 1962; Milic 1973; Vujko, Plavsa; 2010), as it is a low island-type mountain with the peaks Crveni cot (539 m), Orlovac (512 m), and Iriski venac (490 m). It was declared a national park in 1960 in order to protect and enhance its natural beauty and natural values.
Sources of data
A public company Fruska Gora National Park, was founded in 02/10/1961 and based in Sremska Kamenica. It has 161 employees, led by the director. Financing the development and protection of national parks is regulated by the Law on National Parks and is performed from the Budget of Republic of Serbia, control activity, from the compensation for the use of protected natural resource and donations. Due to the protected areas, in accordance with the existing protection regime, forests are used systematically, as well as hunting and fishing fauna, soil, etc. public companies like guardians of the national parks are financed out of such activity. Systematically hunting is allowed, and the revenues are from hunting and fishing. The study included 79 participants, employees in the Fruska Gora National Park. The survey was conducted between January and March 2018.
Methodology
The management represent successful disposal of limited resources or funds, or ability to perform the specified work. Keeping in mind specificity of National Park as an institution as well as limited resources to achieve a certain profit, the paper put emphasis on employees and relationship between employee engagement and performance management process. In order to test the main hypothesis H: that the
employee engagement is a key item for productivity, it was necessary to answer the question: how to motivate employees to achieve their engagement at work?
The paper was composed of two parts. In the first part of the paper was used the model of Khan. Kahn (1990) claims that there are three psychological conditions: psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability. They are precursors of personal engagement. Participants were asked certain questions, and they responded in accordance with their personal experiences.
Psychological meaningfulness is defined as one's opinion on how meaningful it is to invest oneself into a role performance. It is connected to the motivation to engage and the belief that one will receive a return on investment of one's "self-in-role." When people feel appreciated, valuable, acknowledged psychological meaningfulness is achieved. Kahn (1990) believed that three factors influenced meaningfulness: task characteristics, role characteristics, and work interactions. According to this Khan's statement, the participants were asked an open question: What makes you feel worthwhile, valuable, and that they matter?
Psychological safety is one's belief of whether it is safe to invest one's self into a role performance without fear of negative impact on self-image, status, or career. People feel safe to risk self-expression in reliable and predictable social environments which have clearly defined acceptable behaviors. The four factors that, according to Kahn (1990), affected psychological safety were interpersonal relationships, group and intergroup dynamics, management style, and norms. According to this Khan's statement, the participants were asked an open question: How safe do you feel to express personal opinions?
Psychological availability is a concept that refers to one's availability to invest oneself into a role performance. It refers to an individual's belief that he/she can bring physical, emotional, and psychological resources to their roles. Kahn (1990) stated that there are four factors which can affect psychological availability: lack of physical and emotional energy, insecurity, and outside lives. According to this Khan's statement, the participants were asked an open question: What gives you a clear boundary inside of which you feel safe?
The second part of the paper aimed to determine which mechanisms contribute to increased employee engagement and to what extent may contribute to increased employee engagement. The assessment is carried out through four key indicators on five-point scale from 1 (does not meet) to 5 (fully meets), by Likert type. Mechanisms were: relationship according to work; relationship according to work performance; initiative and innovativeness. The employees were given questionnaires with answers. It was necessary to round specific values. As the final result was calculated the average score on all criteria, that was an indicator of an adequate mechanism for engagement, i.e. evaluation of employee engagement in the Fruska Gora National Park.
Engagement mechanisms are included in the planning processes and organizational
environment, and not only the techniques of direct stimulation, which are mainly used in the research of motivation.
Results and discussion
The adequate engagement of the employees is usually measure by job satisfaction and represents a crucial condition for achieving quality goals and the path to business excellence. The satisfaction, i.e. job dissatisfaction is to some extent an indicator of incentives of work and the total work situation. There are two contributing factors that affect employees' engagement at work, as can be seen in this paper. The first factor can be seen in Table 1 and Attachments 1, 2 and 3 (by Khan's method), namely: rewards and recognition system (a, b, c, f, g, h, i, j, p, t and u). An important management instrument used to motivate employees is rewards and recognition system. This means that reward system attracts people to join the organization, motivates them to come to work and perform tasks at high levels (Mahazril, Zuraini, Hafizah, Adnan, Zaherawati, Nazni & Badrul, 2012).
Table 1. Engagement mechanisms
Attachment 1. What makes you feel worthwhile, valuable, and that they matter? Frequency Valid Percent
a. Organize work so that employees feel that they are doing important and meaningful work 10 12.7
b. Delegate more rights and responsibilities of employees for the performance of the whole deal, so they have more autonomy and self-control 10 12.7
c. Introduce forms of participation of employees in decisionmaking 15 19.0
d. Introduce the practice of regular employees informed about important developments in the company and the possibility of permanent communication with the managers,with the obligation to return information 10 12.7
e. To encourage teamwork, organize teams for the completion of complex tasks 5 6.3
f. Introduce a system of special cash bonuses for the results of which would be periodically assign 9 11.4
g. Introduce the practice of contracting duties and salary of each employee individually 10 12.7
h. Introduce the practice of contracting duties and salary of individuals in key positions, salaries and others are regulated by collective agreement 10 12.7
Total 79 100.0
Attachment 2. How safe do you feel to express personal opinions? Frequency Valid Percent
i. Introduce the group incentives, equal for all members of the group, rather than individual 13 16.5
j. Introduce the appropriate types of rewards that would cover all employees, regardless of the results of conditioning 15 19.0
k. Ensuring the safety of the workplace for all 15 19.0
l. Introduce the obligation of managers to develop good relationships 11 13.9
m. Transferred the powers of the directors to direct managers, managers and supervisors that they can largely affect the recruiting of 13 16.5
n. Invest in education and training, to create conditions for the application of knowledge and skills 12 15.2
Total 79 100.0
Attachment 3. What gives you a clear boundary inside of which you feel safe? Frequency Valid Percent
o. Conduct a job analysis and description, standards, and procedures and to establish a system of performance measurement, and on this basis to build the system of distribution of earnings 14 17.7
p. Rewards and punishments applied consistently, depending on the results of work 7 8.9
q. Establish a system of strict control and direct working methods 15 19.0
r. Control only the results of work 16 20.3
s. Set clear goals and a strategy for enterprise development 10 12.7
t. Introduce the practice that employees participate in profit distribution upon the completion of periodical calculation (stocks, shares) 10 12.7
u. Key elements of the distribution of earnings for all employees regulated by collective agreement 7 8.9
Total 79 100.0
Table 2. The estimates of which mechanism may contribute to increased employee engagement and what measure may contribute to increased employee engagement
N Min. Max. Mean Std. Deviation Variance
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic
The relationship according to work
Execution of the work obligations within the prescribed period 79 1 5 3.54 0.106 0.945 0.892
Expediency 79 1 5 3.24 0.099 0.880 0.775
Orderliness 79 1 5 3.30 0.113 1,005 1,009
Efficiency 79 1 5 3.70 0.092 0.822 0.676
Compliance with all the rules of the employer 79 1 5 3.61 0.104 0.926 0.857
The relationship according to work performance
Respect of the working hours 79 1 5 3.94 0.089 0.790 0.624
Relationship with colleagues in a team 79 1 5 4.04 0.093 0.823 0.678
Teamwork 79 1 5 4.29 0.087 0.770 0.594
The initiative
N Min. Max. Mean Std. Deviation Variance
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error Statistic Statistic
Provision of proposals for improving the quality of work 79 1 5 3.23 0.110 0.973 0.947
The innovativeness
Providing ideas and ways to improve the quality of work conditions 79 1 5 3.71 0.122 1.088 1.183
A research on the effect of rewards and recognition system that was conducted by Rizwan & Ali (2010) showed that managers can provide recognition to employees by having informal talks with them, spending time with them having dinner or engaging in other activities such as taking about their families and other important parts of their personal lives. They also stated that reward and recognition in an organization can lead to favourable working environment which motivates employees to perform exceptionally well. Perry and Lois (1990) conducted a research that showed that that financial rewards were not the most important motivator. Different studies have showed that monetary incentives are not the biggest motivating factor for employees and some managers have even said that money has had a negative impact on their employees' motivation.
The second factor can be seen in Table 1 and Attachments 1, 2 i 3 (by Khan's method), namely: effective communication channels (d, e, k, l, m, n, o, q, r and s). In addition to rewards and recognition, one of the most important motivators for employee engagement is communication. Organizations use effective communication channels to motivate employees. Managers communicate with employees so that they would understand them better. They also motivate employees by providing relevant information and maintaining positive attitude in the workplace (Mahazril et al, 2012). Effective company communication increases motivation among employees and improves their understanding of work (Perry & Lois, 1990).
Open communication will make employees loyal to the organization and make them feel respected. In this way, the level of employee motivation will increase (Mahazril et al., 2012). The responses to the first question: What makes you feel worthwhile, valuable, and that they matter? (Table 1, Attachment 1), are confirmed lower-level hypothesis h1: that the sense of belonging to the company has a positive effect on better employee engagement. Namely, the most response to this question was that it was necessary to introduce forms of participation of employees in decision-making (19%), and the other answers were very uniform.
The responses to the second question: How safe do you feel to express personal opinions? (Table 1, Attachment 2), are confirmed lower-level hypothesis h2: leeway in designing various end products and the feeling that someone valued the work has a positive impact on employee engagement. The most response to this question was
that it was necessary to introduce the appropriate types of rewards that would cover all employees, regardless of the results of conditioning (19%) and it was necessary to ensuring the safety of the workplace for all (19%). It allows freedom of expression because the employee feels undisturbed and unrestricted. In addition to these responses, and all the other responses were equally represented (Table 1 and Attachment 2).
The responses to the third question: What gives you a clear boundary inside of which you feel safe? (Table 1 and Attachment 3), are confirmed lower-level hypothesis h3 -appointment of clear objectives of the company has a positive effect on employee engagement. Employees responded that they believed it was necessary to control only the results of work (20.3%) and establish a system of strict control and direct working methods (19%). Namely, by setting the clear boundaries of the company activity, employees can make freedom of expression within these boundaries. If we're really going to motivate someone, we must understand their needs and goals. There is a big difference between the internal running of the employee and outside of employee's efforts to move into action.
The second part of the paper was to determine which mechanisms contribute to increased employee engagement and to what extent may contribute to increased employee engagement. From employees were asked to critically evaluate individual engagement mechanisms to obtain the average evaluation. The results seen in Table 2 show that the employees of the Fruska Gora National Park meet the criteria that the average score of their engagement are 4, which is satisfactory. Individual scores are in the range 3.23 - 4.29 (Table 2), a grade point average in relation to its mechanisms are telling us that the worst is rated the initiative (3.230), and best is rated the relationship according to work performance (4.090). The analysis of the data confirmed lower-level hypothesis h4 - that the successful performance management process has a positive effect on employee engagement.
Conclusion
Contrary to popular belief, the primary reason why employees are not engaged at work are not salary and reward dissatisfaction. It has come to the conclusion that on the employees engagement affects their sense of belonging to the company, evaluation of their efforts, clear guidelines within which the company operates as well as successful performance management process, and best tool to achieve these results are rewards and recognition system and effective communication channels.
Maintaining and enhancing the level of employee engagement is affected by the way top management meets their needs and expectations. Likewise, and results from the minimum difference in engagement testifies to the fact that employers should not underestimate the older and experienced employees, but should consider different options to keep their most loyal and most engaged workforce (for example: part-time and other flexible forms of work).
Personal commitment to the organization's main asset is the most important driver of employee engagement, while the second most important driver of employee engagement is a faith in the quality and competitiveness of products and services of company. These
findings confirmed the main hypothesis H - employee engagement is a key item for productivity. Employees who are engaged want work-life balance, flexible jobs, leaders that respect and trust them, they want to take part in the decision-making process, work with top management (customers, suppliers) and with inspirational people.
They want to be involved in important projects, manage people, have effective communication, work in a supportive environment, have international opportunities, and receive positive feedback. Also, they highly value the opportunity to advance in their career, employers that foster individual development, flexible financial benefits, etc. Employee satisfaction (as well as customer satisfaction) should be directly connected with the effective performance management and customer relationship management in order for a company to improve employee engagement and business results (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; 2008). In this way, managers will acquire an interest in the implementation of various programs to encourage employee engagement and satisfaction.
Psychological contracts fulfillment is associated with both task-related and non-task-related performance (Turnley, Bolino, Lester, & Bloodgood, 2003) and can also result in higher levels of engagement. Therefore, employee engagement as a preferable result of the performance management process is an important but untested development in the related literature (Sparrow, 2008). In addition, organizational research takes on a positive approach to appreciating organizational phenomena, building on the positive psychology movement (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Gruman & Saks, 2011).
Positive organizational behavior (Luthans, 2002a, Luthans, 2002b) and positive organizational scholarship (Cameron & Caza, 2004; Gruman & Saks, 2011) are the most important among these approaches. The application of this approach is employee engagement. Recent trends in performance management literature and organizational sciences show that employee engagement contributes to performance management (Stiles, Gratton, Truss, Hope-Hailey, & McGovern, 1997). Employee engagement in the performance management process can improve performance beyond that achievable by focusing on performance itself (Latham, Almost, Mann & Moore, 2005).
Performance management is made more difficult by certain changes in the workplace such as decentralization, insufficient experience, large spans of control, greater number of knowledge workers (Fletcher & Perry, 2001). Pulakos, Mueller-Hanson, and O'Leary (2008) state that employee management and employee goal-setting are difficult to achieve in economies dominated by knowledge. Therefore, modern processes in performance management need to give attention to creating conditions for knowledge workers engagement if they want to make enhanced performance, which is desired in advanced economies, easier. In other words, contemporary performance management deals both with managing performance and the context in which performance takes place (Dobbins, Cardy, Facteau & Miller, 1993; Jones, 1995).
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Bates, S. (2004). Getting engaged. HRMagazine, 49(2), 44-51.
2. Baumruk, R. (2004). The missing link: The role of employee engagement in business success. Workspan, 47, 48-52.
3. Borman, W. C., & Motowildo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C.
4. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71-98). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
5. Banks, C. G., & May, K. E. (1999). Performance management: the real glue in organizations. In A. I. Kraut & A. K. Korman (Eds.), Evolving practices in human resource management (pp. 118-145). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6. Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 103-118, doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202
7. Bukurov, B. (1978). Backa, Banat, Srem. Matica Srpska, Novi Sad, (in English: Bukurov B. (1978). Backa, Banat, Srem, Matica Srpska, Novi Sad)
8. Baron, R. A. (1983). Behaviour in organisations. New York: Allyn & Bacon, Inc.
9. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309-328, doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115
10. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13, 209-223. doi:10.1108/13620430810870476
11. Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Verbeke, W. (2004). Using the job demands-resources model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management, 43, 83-104.doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20004
12. Buchner, T. W. (2007). Performance management theory: A look from the performer's perspective with implications for HRD. Human Resource Development International, 10, 59-73.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860601170294
13. Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Contribution to the discipline of positive organizational scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 731-739.
doi: 10.1177/0002764203260207
14. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.
15. Cardy, R. L. (2004). Performance management: Concepts, skills, and exercises. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
16. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 499-512. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499
17. Dobbins, G. H., Cardy, R. L., Facteau, J. D., & Miller, J. M. (1993). Implications of situational constraints on performance evaluation and performance management.
Human Resource Management Review, 3, 105-128.
18. Burdev, S.B., Arsenovic, D., Dragin, A. 2010: Contemporary problems in studying population of Vojvodina Province. Acta geographica Slovenica, 50(1), 115-129. Ljubljana. doi: https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS50105
19. Fletcher, C., & Perry, E. L. (2001). Performance appraisal and feedback: A consideration of national culture and a review of contemporary research and future trends. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology, 1, 127-144. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
20. Fine, S., Horowitz, I., Weigler, H., & Basis, L. (2010). Is good character good enough? The effects of situational variables on the relationship between integrity and counterproductive work behaviors. Human Resources Management Review, 20, 73-84. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.03.010
21. Gruman, J.A. & Saks, A.M. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 123-136, doi: https://doi. org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.09.004
22. Goleman, D. (1998). Working with emotional intelligence. London: Bloomsbury.
23. Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3-34. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
24. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279. doi: 10.1037//0021-9010.87.2.268.
25. Jovicic, Z. (1962). Geografske osnove za razvoj turizma na Fruskoj gori. Matica srpska, Novi Sad, (in English: Jovicic Z. (1962). Geographical bases for the development of tourism on Fruska gora. Matica Srpska, Novi Sad).
26. Jones, T. W. (1995). Performance management in a changing context: Monsanto pioneers a competency-based, developmental approach. Human Resource Management, 34, 425-442.doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.3930340306.
27. Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
28. Kahn, W. A. (1992). To be full there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321-349.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872679204500402
29. Latham, G. P., Almost, J., Mann, S., & Moore, C. (2005). New developments in performance management. Organizational Dynamics, 34, 77-87. doi:10.1016/j. orgdyn.2004.11.001
30. Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695-706. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/job.165
31. Luthans, F. (2002b). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 57-72. doi:https:// doi.org/10.5465/ame.2002.6640181
32. Milic, C. (1973). Fruska Gora - geomorfoloskaproucavanja. Matica Srpska, Novi Sad, (in English: Milic, C. (1973). Fruska Gora - geomorphological studies. Matica Srpska, Novi Sad).
33. Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1754-9434.2007.0002.x
34. Macey, W. H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. M., & Young, S. A. (2009). Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, WA: Wiley Blackwell
35. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
36. Mahazril, A. Y., Zuraini, Y., Hafizah, H. A. K., Adnan, A., Zaherawati, Z., Nazni, N. & Badrul, A.M. (2012). Work Motivation among Malaysian Public Servants. Asian Social Science; 5(12), 238-242, doi:10.5539/ass.v8n12p238
37. Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2010). Employee engagement through effective performance management: A practical guide for managers. New York: Routledge. doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315626529
38. Perry, J.L. & Lois, R.W. (1990). The Motivational Bases of Public Service. Public Administration Review 50(3), 367-73.
39. Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 612-624. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.85.4.612
40. Pulakos, E. D., Mueller-Hanson, R.A., & O'Leary, R. S. (2008). Performance management in the United States. In A. Varma, P. S. Budhwar, & A. DeNisi (Eds.), Performance management systems: A global perspective (pp. 97-114). New York: Routledge.
41. Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer's obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389-400. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030110506
42. Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it?
Workspan, 49, 36-39.
43. Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684. doi: . http:// dx.doi.org/10.2307/3094827
44. Rizwan, Q.D., & Ali, U. (2010). Impact of Reward and Recognition on Job Satisfaction and Motivation: An Empirical Study from Pakistan. International journal of business and management, 5(2), 159-167. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v5n2p159
45. Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315, doi: 10.1002/job.248
46. Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
47. Schaufeli, W., & Salanova, M. (2007). Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In S. W. Gilliland, D. D. Steiner & D. P. Skarlicki (Eds.), Managing social and ethical issues in organizations (pp. 135-177). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. doi:10.1108/CDI-09-2013-0114
48. Singh, P. (2008). Job analysis for a changing world. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 87-99, doi: https://doi.org/10.10167j.hrmr.2008.03.004
49. Sparrow, P. (2008). Performance management in the U.K. In A. Varma, P. S. Budhwar, & A. DeNisi (Eds.), Performance management systems: A global perspective (pp. 131-146). New York: Routledge,
50. Stiles, P., Gratton, L., Truss, C., Hope-Hailey, V., & McGovern, P. (1997). Performance management and the psychological contract. Human Resource Management Journal, 7, 57-66. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.1997.tb00274.x
51. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.5.
52. Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137-1138. doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/3069429
53. Turnley, W. H., Bolino, M. C., Lester, S. W., & Bloodgood, J. M. (2003). The impact of psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management, 29, 187-206.
doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00087.x
54. Vujko, A. Plavsa, J. (2010). Netvorking of Fruska gora lakes tourist offer through system of cyclepaths - case study Sot, Bruje and Moharac, Scientific and technical journal in tourism Tourism, 15(1), 1-10. doi:10.5937/Turizam1101001V
55. Allen, L. R., Long, P. T., Perdue, R. R., Kieselbach, S. (1988). The Impact of Tourism Development on Residents' Perceptions of Community Life, Journal of Travel Research, 27(1), 16-21.
