1 Introduction

This chapter presents the findings of the study based on the seven research objectives. The analyses include descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, regression analysis, and structural equation modelling (SEM). Beyond reporting the numbers, this chapter explains what the results mean in human terms—how employees feel about their work, their compensation, their organizational culture, and how these factors influence their performance.

Rather than treating the numbers as abstract statistics, this chapter interprets them in the context of real daily experiences at work: how energized employees feel, how fair they perceive their pay and benefits to be, how supportive the culture is, and how all these shape their performance.

Objective 1:Level of Employee Engagement (Vigor, Dedication, Absorption)

Talbe 1: Descriptive Statistics for Employee Engagement

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Employee Engagement
Dimension Mean Standard Deviation
Vigor (VIG_EN) 3.94 0.52
Dedication (DEC_EN) 4.12 0.52
Absorption (ABS_EN) 3.90 0.52

Figure 1: Mean Levels of Employee Engagement Dimensions

The results show that employees report a generally high level ofengagement. Dedication has the highest mean, followed closely by vigor and absorption. This suggests that many employees feel proud of their work, often consider it meaningful, and are willing to invest effort. They also frequently experience energy and deep focus while working. Taken together, the numbers describe a workforce that is not simply “present” but emotionally and mentally involved in their tasks.

2 Objective 2: Level of Remuneration Quality (Direct and Indirect)

Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Remuneration Quality
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Remuneration Quality
Dimension Mean Standard Deviation
Direct Remuneration (DRE_RQ) 3.77 0.78
Indirect Remuneration (IRE_RQ) 3.87 0.71
Overall Remuneration Quality (REMUQUAL) 3.82 0.72

Figure 2: Mean Levels of Remuneration Quality Dimensions

Employees’ ratings indicate that remuneration quality is moderately high. They view both their salary and benefits as generally fair, with a slightly more favorable perception of indirect remuneration such as allowances, incentives, or other benefits. From a human perspective, this suggests that employees recognize the effort the organization makes to support them beyond basic salary, although there may still be unspoken expectations for more competitive pay.

3 Objective 3: Level of Organizational Culture (Involvement, Consistency, Adaptability, Mission)

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Culture
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics for Organizational Culture
Dimension Mean Standard Deviation
Involvement (INV_OC) 3.94 0.62
Consistency (CON_OC) 3.93 0.61
Adaptability (ADA_OC) 3.99 0.60
Mission (MIS_OC) 3.96 0.62
Overall Culture (ORGACUL) 3.95 0.57

Figure 3: Mean Levels of Organizational Culture Dimensions

Organizational culture is viewed very positively. Involvement, consistency, adaptability, and mission all hover around a mean of 4.00. Employees feel that they are part of a community where they can participate, where rules and processes are reasonably clear, and where the organization can respond to changes. Most importantly, they sense that their organization has a meaningful mission that guides its decisions. This kind of culture places people in an environment where they know what is expected and why their work matters.

4 Objective 4: Level of Employee Performance

Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Employee Performance
Dimension Mean Standard Deviation
Employee Performance (PERF_EP) 4.18 0.56

Employee performance is high, with an average score above 4.00. This reflects that, in general, employees regularly meet and often exceed performance expectations. They deliver quality work, accomplish tasks on time, and contribute significantly to the goals of the organization. When matched with the earlier findings on engagement and culture, this level of performance is understandable: people who feel engaged and supported are more likely to go the extra mile.

5 Objective 5: Correlation Between Engagement, Remuneration, Culture, and Performance

Table 5 Correlation of Key Variables with Employee Performance (PERF_EP)
Variable r p
ENGAGEM 0.672 < .001
VIG_EN 0.538 < .001
DEC_EN 0.637 < .001
ABS_EN 0.646 < .001
REMUQUAL 0.570 < .001
DRE_RQ 0.520 < .001
IRE_RQ 0.577 < .001
ORGACUL 0.742 < .001
INV_OC 0.642 < .001
CON_OC 0.657 < .001
ADA_OC 0.739 < .001
MIS_OC 0.752 < .001

The correlation results show that all key variables are positively and significantly related to employee performance. Organizational culture has the strongest correlation with performance, followed by engagement. Remuneration quality also displays a meaningful positive link. This pattern suggests that strong culture, engaged employees, and fair remuneration all point in the same direction: better performance. It reflects the intuitive idea that people perform better when they believe in the organization, feel energized in their work, and feel that they are treated fairly.

6 Objective 6: Regression Model for Predicting Employee Performance

The multiple regression model used employee performance as the dependent variable and included selected dimensions—mission, adaptability, consistency, absorption, dedication, and direct remuneration—as predictors.

Model Summary
Model R R_Square Adjusted_R_Square Std_Error_Estimate
1 0.811 0.658 0.652 0.32838
ANOVA Table
Source Sum_of_Squares df Mean_Square F Sig
Regression 81.990 6 13.665 126.721 0
Residual 42.703 396 0.108 NA NA
Total 124.693 402 NA NA NA
Table 6 Standardized Regression Coefficients for Predicting Employee Performance
Predictor Standardized Beta p
Mission (MIS_OC) 0.396 < .001
Adaptability (ADA_OC) 0.385 < .001
Consistency (CON_OC) -0.159 .013
Absorption (ABS_EN) 0.264 < .001
Dedication (DEC_EN) 0.106 .027
Direct Remuneration (DRE_RQ) -0.112 .011

The regression results for Objective 6 show a strong relationship between the predictors and the outcome variable. The R value of 0.811 indicates a high degree of correlation, while the R² of 0.658 means that 65.8% of the variation in the dependent variable can be explained by the combined predictors included in the model. This suggests that the model provides substantial explanatory power.

The ANOVA results further support the strength of the model. The F-value of 126.721 with a p-value of .000 indicates that the overall regression model is highly significant. In simple terms, this means that the set of predictors, when considered together, reliably explain variation in the outcome variable and are not due to random chance. The very small p-value confirms that the relationship between the predictors and the dependent variable is statistically meaningful.

The standard error of the estimate (0.32838) implies that the model’s predictions deviate from the actual values by a relatively small amount, confirming good model fit. Overall, these results show that the regression model under Objective 6 is both statistically significant and practically meaningful.

7 Objective 7: Structural Equation Model (SEM)

To capture more complex relationships and latent variables, the study moved from regression to Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). SEM allowed engagement, remuneration quality, and organizational culture to be modeled as latent constructs, with employee empowerment acting as a m# Objective 7: Narrative: Development of the Best-Fitting Structural Equation Model

The seventh objective of this study sought to develop and refine a structural equation model (SEM) that best explains the relationships among employee engagement, remuneration quality, organizational culture, employee empowerment, and employee performance. To accomplish this, a series of five competing structural models were systematically constructed and evaluated. Each model was assessed not only in terms of theoretical soundness but also based on established goodness-of-fit criteria, including CMIN/DF, GFI, NFI, TLI, CFI, and RMSEA. The structural model tells a rich story about life in the organization. Employees who experience a strong, clear, and adaptable culture tend to feel more empowered. When they also feel engaged—energetic, dedicated, and absorbed in their tasks—that empowerment deepens. Empowered employees believe they have the authority, resources, and support to do their work well. This, in turn, leads to higher levels of performance.ediator between these constructs and performance.

7.1 Model 1 – Full Structural Model

Model 1 served as the initial and most comprehensive representation of the conceptual framework. It incorporated all primary constructs (ENGAG, REQUA, ORCUL) and their respective subdimensions, all predicting Employee Empowerment (EMPER), which in turn predicted Employee Performance (PERF_EP).

While several paths were statistically significant—particularly those stemming from organizational culture and engagement—the model demonstrated only marginal acceptability in terms of fit. The CMIN/DF ratio was slightly within acceptable bounds; however, indices such as CFI (.846) and RMSEA (.077) indicated that the model was overly complex and did not optimally fit the data. This suggested a need to refine the structure by reducing weaker or theoretically inconsistent pathways.
Table 7 Model Fit Indices for Structural Equation Model (Model 5)
Fit Index Standard Criterion Model 5 Value
CMIN/DF < 2.00 1.550
p-value > .05 .091
GFI > .95 .978
NFI > .95 .951
TLI > .95 .960
CFI > .95 .982
RMSEA < .05 .037

7.2 Model 1 – Full Structural Model

Table 8. Model 1 Regression Weights
Path B SE CR Beta p
EMPER ← ENGAG 1.019 NA NA 0.384 NA
EMPER ← REQUA -0.487 NA NA -0.254 NA
EMPER ← ORCUL 1.539 NA NA 0.653 NA
DEC_EN ← ENGAG 1.000 NA NA 0.959 NA
VIG_EN ← ENGAG 0.904 0.030 30.109 0.862 ***
ABS_EN ← ENGAG 0.855 0.034 25.303 0.831 ***
DRE_RQ ← REQUA 1.000 NA NA 0.879 NA
IRE_RQ ← REQUA 0.987 0.030 32.759 0.974 ***
ADA_OC ← ORCUL 1.000 NA NA 0.960 NA
CON_OC ← ORCUL 1.032 0.023 44.105 0.945 ***
INV_OC ← ORCUL 1.065 0.026 40.259 0.951 ***
MIS_OC ← ORCUL 1.020 0.021 49.631 0.947 ***
PERF_EP ← EMPER 0.436 NA NA 1.095 NA

Model Fit Indices

Table 9. Model 1 Goodness-of-Fit Indices
Index Value
CMIN/DF 3.353
GFI 0.909
AGFI 0.834
CFI 0.846
TLI 0.768
NFI 0.800
RMSEA 0.077

Comment: Inset Model 1 Diagram here

7.3 Model 2 – Simplified Model Removing Organizational Culture Substructure

Model 2 reduced complexity by removing culture-related subdimensions. This version retained ENGAG and REQUA as predictors of EMPER while streamlining the subfactor structure. The resulting model produced improved fit values, with GFI (.975), CFI (.958), and RMSEA (.069) falling within acceptable thresholds.

Despite better statistical fit, Model 2 became theoretically limited by excluding the organizational culture components that had played a substantial role in Model 1. This trade-off revealed that while simplification can improve statistical indicators, theoretical completeness remained essential.

Table 10. Model 2 Regression Weights
Path B SE CR Beta p
EMPER ← ENGAG 1.926 NA NA 0.667 NA
EMPER ← REQUA 0.381 NA NA 0.179 NA
DEC_EN ← ENGAG 1.000 NA NA 0.952 NA
VIG_EN ← ENGAG 0.897 0.033 26.862 0.866 ***
ABS_EN ← ENGAG 0.839 0.035 23.835 0.808 ***
DRE_RQ ← REQUA 1.000 NA NA 0.864 NA
IRE_RQ ← REQUA 1.027 0.043 23.888 0.981 ***
PERF_EP ← EMPER 0.361 NA NA 0.955 NA
Table 11. Model 2 Goodness-of-Fit Indices
Index Value
CMIN/DF 2.925
GFI 0.975
AGFI 0.925
CFI 0.958
TLI 0.910
NFI 0.939
RMSEA 0.069

Comment: Insert Diagram here