Express your sincere “Thank You” on the Work Floor; How Employee Appreciation is related to Feeling Appreciated and Employee Engagement

(1)

EFFECTS OF EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION ON FEELING APPRECIATED AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT 1

Express your sincere “Thank You” on the Work Floor; How Employee Appreciation is related to Feeling Appreciated and Employee Engagement

Michelle Hendriks S3012832

University of Groningen

Human Resource Management Master Master Thesis

Supervisor dr. P.H. van der Meer

(2)

Abstract

The lack of employees feeling appreciated and engaged at the work floor underlies the purpose of this study to examine how employee appreciation is related to employees’ feelings of being appreciated and employee engagement. This descriptive correlational research, based on survey data of 143 GGZ Helmond employees, tested the models and hypotheses by using structural equation modelling and hierarchical multiple regression. The results showed that employee appreciation positively relates to feeling appreciated and employee engagement. Practical value was added by specifying this relation and showing that employee appreciation based on what they do as an employee and/or who they are as a person expressed by co-workers and especially by supervisors, positively affected employees’

feelings of being appreciated and their engagement levels. Appreciation of clients had no significant effect. Moreover, of theoretical importance is the raised question whether there are other variables influencing how appreciated employees feel, and if so which ones. To conclude, this study suggests using employee appreciation, especially by supervisors, to boost employees’ feelings of being appreciated and their engagement.

Keywords: employee appreciation, feeling appreciated, employee engagement, supervisor,

vertical appreciation, co-worker, horizontal appreciation, client, external appreciation,

structural equating modelling (SEM), hierarchical multiple regression

(3)

Express your sincere “Thank You” on the Work Floor; How Employee Appreciation is related to Feeling Appreciated and Employee Engagement

Do employees feel underappreciated at their work? Surveys which investigated employees’

conditions, showed that employees feel undervalued (Luthans, 2000; Rath & Clifton, 2004; Chapman

& White, 2011; Kuikens, 2014) and experience a lack of appreciation from their management (Glassdoor, 2014). Employee appreciation is important for meeting our basic human need of feeling valued (Maslow, 1954). Feeling valued is not only important to satisfy a basic human need, though research showed that it also has several important positive effects. When employees feel appreciated, they experience higher well-being (Adler & Fagley, 2005; Stocker, Jacobshagen, Pfister, & Semmer, 2014), higher job satisfaction, lower feelings of resentment (Semmer, Jacobshagen, Meier & Elfering, 2007; Stocker, Jacobshagen, Semmer & Annen, 2010), and lower turnover (Chapman & White, 2011).

All these important positive outcomes indicate that the deficiency of employee appreciation is not only negative for the employee but also a waste for the organization.

To seize this deficiency of employee appreciation, it is important to know what makes employees feel appreciated. Appreciation is about feeling a positive emotional connection with the acknowledgement of someone’s value (Adler & Fagley, 2005). The two things a person wants to achieve when expressing appreciation to someone else, is making the other person feel that their value is being acknowledged and experiences positive emotions when receiving appreciation. When both are achieved, employee appreciation is effective.

Important to indicate is that employee appreciation consists out of two dimensions. The first dimension is ‘acknowledging who the employee is as a person’ and the second dimension is

‘acknowledging what the employee does on the work floor’ (Brun & Dugas, 2008). Earlier research was devoted to the effects of work-related appreciation (Graham & Unruh, 1990; Luthans, 2000;

Saunderson, 2004; Grawitch, Gottschalk & Munz, 2006) and many organizations focus on recognition

(4)

programs (SHRM, 2012; Globoforce, 2015), demonstrating the focus on work-related appreciation though lacking person-related appreciation. Some studies did incorporate both dimensions of appreciation (Chapman & White, 2011; Stocker et al., 2010; Stocker et al., 2014). The need for researching many different ways of expressing employee appreciation was already indicated by earlier studies (Brun & Dugas, 2008; Fagler & Adler, 2012). Therefore, this study will provide insights into the importance of both employee appreciation dimensions in order to accomplish employees feeling acknowledged for their overall value. Knowing what enables employees to effectively feel appreciated is of theoretical importance and knowing what behaviours on the work floor effectively express appreciation is of practical importance.

Insights in effective employee appreciation enables appreciation to contribute to other outcome variables, such as employee engagement. Employee engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma & Bakker, 2002). Research showed that employee engagement is seen as a form of competitive advantage (Albrecht, Bakker, Gruman, Macey & Saks, 2015), since it leads to a significantly higher productivity (Gruman & Saks, 2010), profitability, customer ratings, fewer safety incidents, and lower employee turnover (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Saks, 2006; Gallup, 2013;

Hewitt, 2013). Despite of these positive effects of employee engagement, surveys showed that many employees were merely moderately engaged (SHRM, 2012) or even disengaged (Gallup, 2013). This reveals the need for effective employee engagement methods, where employee appreciation could be one of.

The aim of this study is twofold. First, examining to what extent employees feel appreciated when the two dimensions of employee appreciation are expressed by three potential sources of employee appreciation; vertical appreciation (by managers/supervisors), horizontal appreciation (by peers/team-members) and external appreciation (by clients/suppliers/consultants/partners) (Brun &

Dugas, 2008). Secondly, examining the contribution of employee appreciation, including the two

(5)

dimensions and the three sources, on employee engagement. As a result of these two focus points, the leading research question of this study is: What is the effect of employee appreciation, including the two dimensions and three sources, on employees’ feelings of being appreciated and employee engagement?

Theoretical Background Two-dimensional Employee Appreciation

Appreciation is deﬁned as the acknowledgement of the value and meaning of something—an event, a person, a behaviour, an object—and feeling a positive emotional connection to it (Adler &

Fagley, 2005). On the work floor it concerns the acknowledgement of an employee’s value (Chapman

& White, 2011). This ‘value’ can be divided into two aspects. The first dimension is ‘valuing the employee as a person’ (including one’s human dignity, personalities and values) and the second dimension is ‘valuing the employee’s work’ (including one’s efforts, contributions, achievements and results) (Brun & Dugas, 2008). Hence, both dimensions make employees feel appreciated.

Stocker et al. (2014) asked participants to keep a diary of moments they felt appreciated at the work floor. The verbal descriptions of the behaviours were categorized as followed: praise and gratitude, trust and responsibility, support and respect, motivated cooperation, and tangible reward and promotion. Behaviours such as expressing trust, spending time, and listening carefully illustrate appreciation regarding who an individual is as a person. Behaviours such as praising effort, honouring competency, and giving a bonus illustrate appreciation regarding what an employee does. This shows that both dimensions are incorporated in these five categories of employee appreciation.

Moreover, Chapman & White (2011) distinguished four dominant ways of expressing

appreciation on the work floor: ‘words of affirmation’, ‘quality time’, ‘acts of service’ and ‘tangible

gifts’. They also emphasized the importance of both dimensions. An employee can be praised for a

personality characteristic or for a task executed well, which both evoke feelings of appreciation.

(6)

Appreciation can have different sources, including horizontal, vertical and external appreciation. Stocker et al. (2014) showed that besides leaders, customers and co-workers were frequent sources of appreciation as well. The most frequent source of appreciation was customers, followed by co-workers and supervisors. They concluded that all three sources are important for employees to feel appreciated.

Based on the aforementioned literature, it is expected that employee appreciation is a six-factor model based on the combination of the two dimensions and three sources; work-vertical, work- horizontal, work-external, person-vertical, person-horizontal, and person-external.

Hypothesis 1. Employee appreciation, including work-related and person-related vertical, horizontal and external appreciation, is positively related to employees’ feelings of being appreciated.

Moreover, it is expected that both forms of employee appreciation are important in order to make employees feel appreciated on the work floor. Therefore, it is expected that the combination of work- and person-related appreciation leads to higher feelings of being appreciated than solely work- or person-related appreciation.

Hypothesis 2. Appreciation based on ‘who you are as a person’ and ‘what you do as an employee’ are together a better predictor of feeling appreciated compared to the individual effect of each dimension.

Lastly, it is expected that all three sources of employee appreciation are important in making employees feel appreciated on the work floor. Therefore, it is expected that the combination of appreciation of one’s supervisor, colleague and client leads to higher feelings of being appreciated than the combination of two sources or solely work- or person-related appreciation.

Hypothesis 3. The combination of vertical, horizontal and external appreciation is a better predictor of feeling appreciated compared to appreciation of solely two sources or one source.

Appreciation and Engagement

(7)

‘Engagement is a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy and mental resilience while working, the willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence even when facing difficulties.

Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one's work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Absorption, is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003, pp.4-5).

Several developed models and theories demonstrate how to enhance employee engagement.

Kahn (1990) defined three psychological conditions of engagement: psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety and psychological availability. Psychological meaningfulness, feeling worthwhile and valuable, can be evoked by appreciation such as work-interactions and provided responsibilities and opportunities to grow (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004). Psychological safety refers to feeling safe enough to show one's self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career. This can be enhanced by interpersonal relationships and a management style characterized by trust and support (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004), which are forms of appreciation (Stocker et al., 2014). Psychological availability is about having physical, emotional or psychological resources, which can be enhanced by autonomy, positive performance feedback, providing decision making rights, new assignments, and support (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004), which are also forms of appreciation (Stocker et al., 2014). To conclude, all three psychological conditions of engagement defined by Kahn (1990) can be boosted by appreciation.

Psychological availability as one of the precondition of engagement is related to the Job

Demand-Resources (JD-R) model, which is a more recent approach of enhancing engagement

(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001b). Job resources are highly positively related with

positive emotions. According to the Broaden-and-Build theory of positive emotions (Fredrickson,

2001), positive emotions on the work floor such as joy have the capacity to broaden employees’

(8)

momentary thought- and action repertoires and to build their job resources through widening the array of thoughts and actions that come to mind. These job resources can vary from physical and intellectual resources to social and psychological resources. For instance ‘interest’, indicated as a positive emotion, fosters the desire to explore new information, experiences and to grow (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).

Research on the JD-R model found that job resources predict employee engagement (Bakker &

Demerouti, 2008). Thus, positive emotions which enforce job resources can enhance employee engagement.

Knowing that feelings of appreciation are identified to go hand in hand with experiencing positive emotions (Rhenen & Visser, 2011; Stocker et al., 2014; Adler & Fagley, 2005), the notion that appreciation is a way to strengthen employee engagement is supported. Furthermore, the categorization of appreciative behaviour on the work floor by Stocker et al. (2014) include support, trust, and responsibilities which are job resources as defined by Bakker and Demerouti (2008). Finally, Bakker, Hakanen, Demerouti and Xanthopoulou (2007) showed that appreciation is an important direct job resource for enhancing employee engagement. Based on the aforementioned literature, it is expected that employee appreciation is positively related to employee engagement.

Hypothesis 4. Employee appreciation, including work-related and person-related vertical, horizontal and external appreciation, is positively related to employee engagement.

Employee appreciation consists out of acknowledgement of ‘who they are as a person’ and acknowledgement of ‘what they do as an employee’ (Brun & Dugas, 2008). Therefore, it is expected that employee appreciation as a whole, including both dimensions, will have the highest effect on engagement, compared to solely work- or person-related appreciation.

Nevertheless, these two dimensions can differ in their predicting power of employee

engagement. Both dimensions of appreciation can enhance psychological meaningfulness and

psychological safety, which are two of the conditions of employee engagement. However, the

remained condition psychological availability, concerning having physical, emotional or

(9)

psychological resources, can be enhanced by positive performance feedback, allowing decision making and assigning new assignments. These enhanced factors are mainly work-related forms of appreciation. Moreover, earlier research only provided evidence for ‘appreciation for what you do as an employee’ as a driver of employee engagement (Hewitt, 2015; Towers Watson 2009; Globoforce, 2015). Lastly, employee engagement is a work-related state of mind (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2003).

Based on the aforementioned literature, it is expected that work-related appreciation has the highest predicted value of employee engagement, compared to person-related appreciation.

Hypothesis 5. Appreciation based on ‘who you are as a person’ and ‘what you do as an employee’ are together a better predictor of employee engagement compared to the individual effect of each dimension, where appreciation based on ‘what you do as an employee’ has the highest contribution to employee engagement.

Appreciation can have different sources, including horizontal, vertical and external appreciation (Stocker et al., 2014). Psychological meaningfulness, psychological safety, and psychological availability can all be enhanced by appreciation of supervisors, co-workers and clients. However, vertical appreciation can be of higher importance to psychological safety due to the importance of a supportive managerial style (May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004). A power position is needed to provide employees with more responsibilities such as autonomy and skill variety. Therefore, only supervisors are able to express these forms of appreciation. As such, it is expected that vertical appreciation has a higher contribution to employee engagement than horizontal and external appreciation.

Hypothesis 6. Vertical, horizontal and external appreciation are together a better predictor of employee engagement compared to appreciation of solely two sources or one source, where vertical appreciation has the highest contribution to employee engagement.

Method

Sample and Procedure

(10)

The research was conducted at the GGZ Helmond, part of GGZ Oost Brabant the Netherlands, consisting out of 623 employees. The management board distributed an email among their employees, including information about the importance of the research for the employees themselves and the confidential nature of the responses. The employees were asked to fill out the online questionnaire of

± 15 minutes.

Of the 176 participants who started the survey, 28 (16%) were excluded due to missing data.

From the 148 remaining respondents, 5 (3%) were excluded to reassure valid responses as they provided an incorrect score on the control question. Lastly, the questions regarding external appreciation were not applicable to participants from the ‘ondersteunende dienst’ since they have no clients. The answers on the external appreciation statements for these 16 participants were declared as missing values.

The final sample consisted of 143 employees. Mean age was 45.8 years (SD = 11.9; range = 21 to 63); 78.3% were women; 25.2% had a university degree, 42% had completed higher education, 21.7% finished intermediate vocational education, and 11.2% had completed college. Mean job tenure was 13.12 years (SD = 9.9; range = 0.3 to 40). Most (61.5%) worked part-time and the rest worked full-time (38.5%); from whom 14% had a temporary contract and 86% a permanent contract. Average health satisfaction was 5.6 (SD = 1.2), average work-life balance satisfaction was 5.4 (SD = 1.3), and the average income satisfaction was 5.1 (SD = 1.3). This sample is representative for the population since 71.4% of all 623 GGZ Helmond employees are female and the mean age is between 45 and 53 years old, which is similar to this sample (Ivonne Vereijken, personal communication, April 25, 2016).

Research Design, Measures and Instruments

This descriptive correlational research included twelve independent variables and two

dependent variables. The research was based on one survey measurement conducted on one group to

test the hypotheses. To maintain quality answers, a control question was included which stated “If you

read this question correctly, please fill out the score never for this question”.

(11)

Outcome Variable

The variable ‘feeling appreciated’ was measured by one question asking “How appreciated do you feel in general as an employee of the GGZ Oost Brabant?” This variable was measured on a 7- point scale; (1) not at all, (2) not, (3) hardly, (4) somewhat, (5) moderate, (6) much, (7) very much.

The variable employee engagement was measured with the Utrecht work engagement scale (Schaufeli

& Bakker, 2003), which includes three subscales: vigor, dedication and absorption. Participants were asked to rate these statements on a scale from (1) highly disagree to (5) highly agree. This scale showed a good internal consistency (

α =

.91).

Predictor Variable

A collection of thirty statements from earlier research to indicate employee appreciation, was used to measure employee appreciation, shown in Appendix A. Participants were asked to imagine the thirty statements being applicable to themselves. First, they were asked to what extent they would feel appreciated in the demonstrated situation. This variable, ‘potential employee appreciation’, was measured on a 7-point scale from (1) not at all to (7) very much. Secondly, the participants were asked how often the described situations occurred to them. This variable, ‘actual employee appreciation’, was measured on a scale from (1) never (2) rarely, (3) sometimes, (4) occasionally, (5) frequently, (6) usually, (7) always. Twelve new variables were computed based on the actual employee appreciation scale.

Employee Appreciation. By combining all thirty items of the actual employee appreciation scale, the ‘employee appreciation’ variable was computed indicating how frequent employees received appreciation (

α =

.88).

Work- and Person Appreciation. The two employee appreciation dimension variables, ‘work

appreciation’ (

α =

.82) and ‘person appreciation’ (

α =

.80), were computed according to a division

between fourteen and sixteen statements respectively based on literature, demonstrated in Appendix

A. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the total variance explained by two factors was 33.6%.

(12)

Vertical, Horizontal and External Appreciation. The three source variables of appreciation,

‘vertical’ (

α =

.87), ‘horizontal’ (

α =

.73), and ‘external’ (

α =

.79) appreciation, could be computed easily since the statements included by which source the appreciation was expressed. This resulted in a division of fourteen, ten and six statements, respectively. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the total variance explained by three factors was 41.3%.

Work-Vertical, Work-Horizontal, Work-External, Person-Vertical, Person-Horizontal, and Person-External appreciation. Lastly, the six factors of employee appreciation were computed based on the above item division. Exploratory factor analysis indicated that the total variance explained by six factors was 56.7%. With Cronbach’s alphas .77, .68, .75, .83, .61 and .61 for the six dimensions, respectively.

Control Variables

To make sure solely the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable would be shown, this study controlled for other variables that are known to have an effect on employee engagement. These are gender, age, type of employment (full-time vs. part-time and permanent vs.

temporary) and education (Mauno et al., 2007; Rothmann & Joubert, 2007; Xanthopoulou et al, 2009).

Moreover, it is expected that low satisfaction of health, work-life balance and income focusses peoples’ attention and energy on these private aspects, which can decrease vigor and absorption in their work (Huiskamp, 2004). Therefore, these variables were included as control variables as well.

Data analysis

First of all, the actual appreciation scores of employees from the ‘Ondersteunende dienst’ were based on 24 statements, since those employees do not have clients. The hypotheses were tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), structural equation modelling (SEM) and (hierarchical) multiple regression. Throughout the whole study a significance level of 0.05 was used.

STATA 14SE was used to conduct a CFA and to test multiple factor SEM for examining model

fit and structural path significance. Based on the literature of Hooper, Couglan and Mullen (2008),

(13)

good model fit was realized by a Chi-Square with a p-value > .05, a root-mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) < .08, a standardized root mean residual (SRMR) < .08, and a comparative fit index (CFI) > .9. These indices have been chosen over other indices as they have been found to be the most insensitive to sample size, model misspecification and parameter estimates. Finally, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) was used to compare non-nested models, estimated with the same data, in order to indicate which of the models is the most parsimonious. Smaller AIC values suggest a good fitting (Hooper, Couglan, & Mullen, 2008).

Subsequently, (hierarchical) multiple regression analyses were conducted with SPSS 22.0.

Control variables were added in block 1, the independent variables were added in separate blocks to determine whether both independent variables together explained a higher variance of the dependent variable compared to the independent variables separately. The effect size for multiple regression, Cohen’s f, was calculated by R

²

/(1- R

²

) and interpreted by the Cohen’s (1988) rule of thumb; small (.14), medium (.39), large (.59). Before the regression analyses were interpreted, it was ensured that the assumptions of generalizability, multicollinearity, outliers, normality, linearity, level of measurement and related pairs were met (Pallant, 2010). Generalizability was tested by the formula of Tabachnick and Fidell (2007, p.123) for calculating sample size requirements, taking the number of independent variables into account: N > 50 + 8m (m = number of independent variables).

Multicollinearity was shown by r ≥ .9 between the independent variables, a Tolerance score < .10 and a VIF score > 10. Outliners were detected by values > 3.3 in the standardised residual plot. Normality was checked by indicating a normal distribution in a histogram. Linearity was checked by indicating a straight line in a scatterplot. Level of measurement was met by only including continuous variables.

Finally, related pairs was met by including only participants having a score on both variable X and Y.

Results

Table 1 represents all means, standard deviations, correlations and Cronbach’s alphas from all

study variables. In general, employees at GGZ Helmond sometimes receive appreciation (M = .3.01),

(14)

feel fairly appreciated (M = 4.80), and are engaged in their work (M = 5.47). The high correlation between employee appreciation and feeling appreciated (r = .43) supported construct validity of the employee appreciation measurement.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Employee Appreciation

A confirmatory factor analysis was used to determine the valid factor structure of employee

appreciation. The proposed six-factor model includes work-vertical, work-horizontal, work-external,

person-vertical, person-horizontal and person-external appreciation, which is illustrated in Figure 1

showing estimations and inter-factor covariances between the employee appreciation factors. The

absolute fit measures, illustrated in Table 2, showed an overall good fit. The content validity of the six

employee appreciation factor model has been tested using the six-factor model against three other

models, namely (1) a three-factor model including vertical, horizontal and external appreciation; (2) a

two factor model, including work- and person-related appreciation; and (3) a one-factor model, with

all thirty items loaded on one latent variable. It could be concluded that the six-factor model produced

a comparatively higher fit than the one- two- and three-factor model since the six-factor model had the

lowest AIC value. Consequently, the content validity of the six-factor model of employee appreciation

was supported.

(15)

Table 1 Study variables: Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s α, and inter-correlations

Variables N α M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Independent Variables

1. Employee Appreciation 143 .88 3.01 .77 1

2. Person Appreciation 143 .80 3.35 .78 .93** 1

3. Work Appreciation 143 .82 2.91 .83 .90** .65** 1

4. Vertical Appreciation 143 .87 2.69 .92 .88** .89** .68** 1

5. Horizontal Appreciation 143 .73 3.39 .86 .82** .70** .77** .57** 1

6. External Appreciation 127 .79 3.54 1.18 .58** .41** .66** .23* .33** 1 7. Work-Vertical Appr 143 .77 2.10 .97 .79** .77** .60** .83** .58** .20* 1

8. Work-Horizontal Appr 143 .68 3.24 1.00 .85** .78** .56** .55** .90** .37** .60** 1

9. Work-External Appr 127 .75 3.36 1.27 .70** .58** .36** .24** .34** .96** .24** .37** 1

10. Person-Vertical Appr 143 .83 3.02 1.03 .52** .82** .91** .96** .49** .21* .63** .46** .20* 1

11. Person-Horizontal Appr 143 .61 3.55 .93 .50** .68** .68** .46** .88** .21* .42** .59** .21* .42** 1

12. Person-External Appr 127 .61 3.92 1.33 .41** .45** .41** .12 .24** .84** .06 .24* .64** .19* .17 1 Dependent Variables

13. Feeling Appreciated 143 - 4.80 1.07 .43** .42** .34** .50** .35** .01 .41** .36** .04 .48** .25** -.06 1

14. Employee Engagement 143 .91 5.47 .77 .27** .25* .28** .29** .14 .18* .47** .18* .22* .28** .07 .06 .47** 1 Note: *p < .05, **p < .01

(16)

Figure 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Employee Appreciation

Note: χ ²(390) = 615.07, p <.001; RMSEA = .07, p <.001; CFI = .81; SRMR = .09.

* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

Table 2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Model χ² Df RMSEA CFI SRMR AIC/BIC

One-factor model 928.65 405 .10 .55 .11 13330.31

Two-factor model 876.93 404 .10 .59 .11 13280.59

Three-factor model 691.03 402 .08 .75 .09 13098.68

Six-factor model 615.07 390 .07 .81 .09 13046.72

(17)

The effect of employee appreciation on feeling appreciated

To determine the effect of employee appreciation on feeling appreciated, structural equation modelling and hierarchical multiple regression were conducted. It was expected that employees who receive more appreciation would feel more appreciated.

Descriptive statistics of the potential appreciation items showed that all thirty items could make employees feel appreciated, since all item had a mean score of ≥ 4, M min = 4.69, M max = 5.78, meaning that employees feel at least somewhat appreciated when that situation would occur to them.

The first SEM included the latent variable employee appreciation loaded on all thirty items, predicting the direct variable feeling appreciated. The absolute fit measures, illustrated in Table 3, did not meet the criteria for having a good fit, indicating that paths are missing. However, the results showed that employee appreciation had a positive effect on feeling appreciated, B = .97, p < .001. The second SEM included the six-factors of employee appreciation as latent variables without covariances predicting the direct variable feeling appreciated. The absolute fit measures, illustrated in Table 3, did not meet the criteria of a good fit, indicating that paths are missing. From all six factors, person- vertical, B = .64, p < .001, and work-horizontal, B = 1, p < .001, had a unique predicted value on feeling appreciated. The six-factor employee appreciation model had the lowest AIC value, indicating the best fit.

Table 3 Comparison of Structural Equation Models Hypothesis 1

Model & Structure χ² Df RMSEA CFI SRMR AIC

Hypothesis 1

Model 1: Employee Appr  Feeling Appr 960.00 434 .10 .56 .11 13682.95

Model 2: Work-Vertical + Work-Horizontal + Work- External + Person-Vertical + Person-Horizontal + Person- External  Feeling Appr

883.29 429 .09 .62 .18 13616.24

Note. For all χ2, p < .001.

The first multiple regression conducted included employee appreciation as predictor of feeling appreciated. The results, illustrated in Table 4, showed that employee appreciation explained 18.3%

of employees’ feelings of being appreciated, representing a small effect (Cohen’s f = .22). The second

(18)

multiple regression conducted included the six employee appreciation factors as predictors of feeling appreciated. The combination of all six employee appreciation factors explained 29.2% of employees’

feeling of being appreciated, representing a medium effect (Cohen’s f = .41). Partly contradicting with SEM, only person-vertical appreciation was found to have a unique predicted value on feeling appreciated.

Table 4 Hierarchical regression analysis Hypothesis 1

Predictor Dependent B SE B β R² ΔR² F

Feeling Appr

Model 1 .18*** 31.66***

Employee Appr .60*** .11 .43***

Model 2 .29*** 8.24***

Work-Vertical .06 .13 .05

Work-Horiziontal .22 .12 .21

Work-External -.01 .09 -.01

Person-Vertical .41*** .11 .40***

Person-Horizontal -.03 .11 -.03

Person-External -.14 .08 -.18

Note. (Regarding all regression Tables). N = 143 except for external N = 127, * p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. / ΔR² illustrates the difference in R² compared to Model 1 (Block 1 is not included to define ΔR²).

To conclude, the overall results did support Hypothesis 1. Employee appreciation, as a six- factor construct, is positively related to employees’ feelings of being appreciated with person-vertical appreciation having a unique predicted value.

The importance of both employee appreciation dimensions

To determine the importance of both appreciation dimensions on feeling appreciated, structural

equation modelling and hierarchical multiple regression were used. It was expected that employees

experiencing both work- and person-related appreciation would feel more appreciated, compared to

employees solely experiencing work- or person-related appreciation.

(19)

SEM included the latent variables work and person appreciation with covariance as predictor of the direct variable feeling appreciated. The absolute fit measures, illustrated in Table 5, did not meet the criteria for having a good fit, indicating that paths are missing. The covariance within the model was significant, cov W-P = .82, p < .001. The model including solely work appreciation had the lowest AIC value, indicating the best fit. This model showed a significant effect of work appreciation on engagement, B = .44, p < .001. This significant effect disappeared when work and person appreciation were combined in a model. Within this model, only person appreciation remained having a unique predicted value on feeling appreciated, B = 1, p < .001.

Table 5 Comparison of Structural Equation Models Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2

Model 1: Person Appr  Feeling Appr 257.44 119 .10 .71 .09 7478.34

Model 2: Work Appr  Feeling Appr 226.48 90 .11 .71 .10 6570.67

Model 3: Person Appr + Work Appr  Feeling Appr 905.65 432 .09 .60 .11 13632.60 Note. For all χ2, p < .001.

Three multiple regressions were conducted with work appreciation, person appreciation and both dimensions as independent variables successively. The results, illustrated in Table 6, showed that the predicted value of the combination of work and person appreciation was equal to solely person appreciation. The combination of work and person appreciation explained 18.3% of employees’

feelings of being appreciated, representing a small to medium effect (Cohen’s f = .22). Consistent with SEM, only person appreciation remained having a unique predicted value. The predicted value of the combination of both dimensions differed significantly with 6.7% from the predicted value of solely work appreciation and insignificantly with 0.9% from the predicted value of solely person appreciation.

Table 6 Hierarchical regression analysis Hypothesis 2

Feeling Appr

(20)

Model 1 .18*** 13.86***

Work Appr .16 .14 .12

Person Appr .56*** .14 .42***

Model 2 .12*** .067** 16.36***

Work Appr .44*** .11 .34***

Model 3 .17*** .009 26.35***

Person Appr .57*** .11 .42***

To conclude, the overall results did not support Hypothesis 2. Employees’ feelings of being appreciated were equal when receiving solely person-related appreciation or a combination of work- and person-related appreciation. Nevertheless, the combination of work and person appreciation was a better predictor of feeling appreciated than solely work appreciation.

The importance of all employee appreciation sources

To determine the importance of all three appreciation sources on feeling appreciated, structural equation modelling and hierarchical multiple regression were conducted. It was expected that employees receiving appreciation by all three sources would feel more appreciated, compared to employees solely experiencing appreciation of two or one of the sources.

SEM included the latent variables vertical, horizontal and external appreciation with covariances predicting the direct variable feeling appreciated. The absolute fit measures, illustrated in Table 7, showed that all models had an overall good model fit. All covariances within the models were significant; cov V-H = .33, p = .00; cov V-E = .21, p = .02; cov H-E = .24, p =.01. The model including solely external appreciation had the lowest AIC value, indicating the best fit. However, this model showed no significant effect of external appreciation on feeling appreciation, B = .01, p = 95. All other models did show a significant effect of one of the variables. First, the model including solely horizontal appreciation, showed a significant effect of horizontal appreciation on feeling appreciated, B = 1.00, p

< .001. Secondly, all models including vertical appreciation only showed a significant effect of vertical appreciation, B = 1.00, p < .001.

Table 7 Comparison of Structural Equation Models Hypothesis 3

(21)

Hypothesis 3

Model 1: Vertical Appr  Felt Appr 209.76 105 .08 .84 .09 7565.69

Model 2: Horizontal Appr  Felt Appr 91.70 44 .09 .83 .07 5402.56

Model 3: External Appr  Felt Appr 27.79 21 .05 .97 .06 3582.28

Model 4: Vertical Appr + Horizontal Appr  Felt Appr 471.29 273 .07 .81 .08 11977.79 Model 5: Vertical Appr + External Appr  Felt Appr 347.28 208 .07 .83 .09 9521.65 Model 6: Horizontal Appr + External Appr  Felt Appr 201.27 117 .08 .83 .08 7529.83 Model 7: Vertical Appr + Horizontal Appr + External

Appr  Felt Appr

713.70 429 .07 .76 .08 13446.65

Seven multiple regressions were conducted with solely vertical, horizontal, external appreciation, with combinations of two sources and with the combination of all three sources as independent variables successively. Feeling appreciated was the dependent variable. The results, illustrated in Table 8, showed that each combination including vertical appreciation or solely vertical appreciation was the best predictor of feeling appreciated. The combination of vertical, horizontal and external appreciation explained 27.2% of employees general feeling of being appreciated, representing a medium effect (Cohen’s f = .37). In this model, only vertical appreciation had a unique predicted value. The predicted value of the combination of all three sources differed insignificantly with 2.3%

from the predicted value of solely vertical appreciation, significantly with 15.2% from the predicted value of solely horizontal appreciation, and significantly with 27.2% from the predicted value of solely external appreciation. Moreover, the predicted value of the combination of all three sources differed insignificantly with 1.8% from the predicted value of the combination of vertical and horizontal, and insignificantly with 1.1% from the predicted value of the combination of external and vertical, within both models only vertical appreciation having a unique predicted value. Lastly, the predicted value of the combination of all three sources differed significantly with 13.8% from the predicted value of the combination of external and horizontal, with only horizontal appreciation having a unique predicted value. These multiple regression results of the significance per variable were consistent with the SEM results.

Table 8 Hierarchical regression analysis Hypothesis 3

(22)

Predictor Dependent B SE B β R² ΔR² F Feeling Appr

Model 1 .27*** 15.30***

Vertical Appr .53*** .11 .45***

Horizontal Appr .17 .12 .13

External Appr -.13 .07 -.14

Model 2 .25*** .02 41.36***

Vertical Appr .58*** .09 .50***

Model 3 .12*** .15*** 17.07***

Horizontal Appr .43*** .10 .35***

Model 4 .00 .27*** .01***

External Appr .01 .08 .01

Model 5 .25*** .02 21.13***

Vertical Appr .52*** .11 .45***

Model 6 .26*** .01 21.85***

Vertical Appr .61*** .09 .52***

Model 7 .27*** .14*** 4.54***

Horizontal Appr .48*** .11 .39***

To conclude, the results did not fully support Hypothesis 3. Feeling appreciated as an employee was best predicted by employee appreciation of supervisors solely or in combination with other sources. Nevertheless, the combination of all three sources led to higher feelings of being appreciated compared to the combination of horizontal and external appreciation, solely horizontal appreciation and solely external appreciation.

The effect of employee appreciation on engagement

To determine the effect of employee appreciation on employee engagement, SEM and hierarchical multiple regression models were conducted. It was expected that when employees receiving more employee appreciation would also be more engagement in their work.

The first SEM included the latent control variables sex, age, education, satisfaction health,

satisfaction work-life balance, satisfaction income, and type of tenure; the latent variable employee

appreciation loaded on all thirty items predicting the latent dependent variable employee engagement

loaded on fourteen items. The absolute fit measures, showed in Table 9, did not meet the criteria of a

good fit, indicating that paths are missing. However, the results showed that employee appreciation

(23)

was positively related with employee engagement, B = .32, p = .03. The control variables education, B = .15, p = .00, work-life balance satisfaction, B = .23, p < .001, and income satisfaction, B = .14, p

= .03, showed a unique predicted value of employee engagement. After deleting the insignificant control variables, the model fit increased according to AIC, illustrated in Table 9.

The second SEM included the latent control variables sex, age, education, satisfaction health, satisfaction work-life balance, satisfaction income, and type of tenure; the six-factors of employee appreciation as latent variables without covariances predicting the latent variable employee engagement. The absolute fit measures, showed in Table 9, did not meet the criteria of a good fit, indicating that paths are missing. From all six factors, work-horizontal had a significant effect on employee appreciation, B = .37, p = .03. The control variables education, B = .15, p = .01, work-life balance satisfaction, B = .24, p < .001, and income satisfaction, B = .15, p = .01, showed a unique predicted value of employee engagement. After deleting the insignificant control variables, the model fit increased according to AIC, illustrated in Table 9.

Table 9 Comparison of Structural Equation Models Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 5

Model 1: All control variables + Employee Appr  Engagement

2413.54 1202 .09 .55 .10 20773.54

Model 2: Sig control variables + Employee Appr  Engagement

2139.89 1030 .09 .57 .10 19218.02

Model 3: All control variables + Work-Vertical + Work- Horizontal + Work-External + Person-Vertical + Person- Horizontal + Person-External  Engagement

2339.55 1197 .09 .57 .14 20709.55

Model 4: Sig control variables + Work-Vertical + Work- Horizontal + Work-External + Person-Vertical + Person- Horizontal + Person-External  Engagement

2063.02 1025 .09 .60 .15 19151.15

The first hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with employee appreciation predicting

employee engagement. The results, illustrated in Table 10, showed that employee appreciation

explained an additional significant 3.5% of the variance in employee engagement, after controlling for

gender, age, employment type, education, health satisfaction, work-life balance satisfaction and

(24)

income satisfaction, representing a small effect (Cohen’s f = .04). Consistent with SEM, employee appreciation had a unique predicted value on employee engagement. Moreover, the control variables education, work-life balance satisfaction, and income satisfaction had a unique predicted value on engagement.

The second hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with the six factors of employee appreciation predicting employee engagement. The results, illustrated in Table 10, showed that the 6 factors combined explained an additional significant 9.4% of the variance in employee engagement, after controlling for gender, age, employment type, education, health satisfaction, work-life balance satisfaction and income satisfaction, representing a small effect (Cohen’s f = .10). Consistent with SEM, the control variables education, work-life balance satisfaction, and income satisfaction had a unique predicted value on engagement. Inconsistent with SEM, none of the six factors had a unique predicted value on employee engagement.

Table 10 Hierarchical regression analysis Hypothesis 4

Engagement

Block 1 .22*** 4.65***

Control Variables: (sig) Education

Work-Life Satisfaction Income Satisfaction

.10***

.21***

.123***

.04 .05 .05

.22***

.36***

.21***

Model 1 .27* 4.67***

Employee Appr .20* .08 .20*

Model 2 .31*** 3.88***

Work-Vertical .03 .10 .04

Work-Horiziontal .15 .10 .19

Work-External .08 .07 .13

Person-Vertical .14 .08 .18

Person-Horizontal -.12 .09 -.14

Person-External -.10 .06 -.17

To conclude, even though the SEM did not met all the criteria of a good model fit, employee

appreciation as a six-factor variable, was a significant predictor of employee engagement, confirming

(25)

Hypothesis 4. When employees received more employee appreciation, their engagement were higher as well.

The importance of both appreciation dimensions on engagement

To determine the importance of both appreciation dimensions on employee engagement, SEM and hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted. It was expected that employees receiving both work- and person-related appreciation would be more engaged, compared to employees solely experiencing work- or person-related appreciation. Work appreciation was expected to have the highest predicted value on employee engagement.

SEM included the direct significant control variables of Hypothesis 4; the latent variable employee appreciation based on the latent variables work- and person appreciation with covariance predicting the latent variable employee appreciation. The absolute fit measures, illustrated in Table 11, did not meet the criteria of a good fit, indicating that paths are missing. The model including solely work appreciation had the lowest AIC value, indicating the best model fit. The significant effect of work appreciation, B = .20, p = .01, demonstrated in the model solely including work appreciation, disappeared when combining work and person appreciation in a model. Both work, B = .14 p = .23 and person appreciation, B = .06, p = .56, had no unique predicted value on employee engagement.

Lastly, within all models the control variables education and work-life balance satisfaction were significant predictors of employee appreciation.

Table 11 Comparison of Structural Equation Models Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 5

Model 1: Control variables + Person Appr  Engagement 1302.59 607 .10 .62 .10 14569.42 Model 2: Control variables + Work Appr  Engagement 1204.23 537 .10 .64 .10 13644.74 Model 3: Control variables + Person Appr + Work Appr

 Engagement

2360.88 1200 .09 .57 .10 20724.89

(26)

A hierarchical multiple regression was conducted with work- and person appreciation predicting employee engagement. The results, illustrated in Table 12, showed that the combination of work and person appreciation explained an additional significant 5.1% of the variance in employee engagement, after controlling for gender, age, employment type, education, health satisfaction, work- life balance satisfaction and income satisfaction, representing a small effect (Cohen’s f = .05).

Consistent with SEM, both work and person appreciation had no unique predicted value on employee engagement. The predicted value of the combination of both dimensions differed with 0.2% from the predicted value of solely work appreciation, and with 1.8% from the predicted value of solely person appreciation.

Table 12 Hierarchical regression analysis Hypothesis 5

Engagement

Block 1¹ .22***

Model 1 .27*** 2.19***

Work Appr .18 .10 .19

Person Appr .06 .11 .07

Model 2 .26*** .00 5.29***

Work Appr .22** .08 .23**

Model 3 .25*** .02 4.88***

Person Appr .19* .08 .19*

Note. ¹=Block 1 is equal to the regression analysis of Hypothesis 4.

To conclude, the overall results did not support Hypothesis 5. Employees’ feelings of being appreciated were equal when receiving solely work- or person-related appreciation or a combination of work- and person-related appreciation. Moreover, work appreciation was no better predictor of feeling appreciated than person appreciation, when being combined.

The importance of all appreciation sources on engagement

To determine the importance of all three appreciation sources on employee engagement, SEM

and hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted. It was expected that employees experiencing

appreciation by all three sources would be more engagement, compared to employees only

(27)

experiencing appreciation of two or one appreciation sources. Vertical appreciation was expected to have the highest predicted value on employee engagement.

SEM included the direct significant control variables of Hypothesis 4; the latent variables vertical, horizontal and external appreciation with covariances predicting the latent variable employee appreciation. The absolute fit measures, illustrated in Table 13, of model 4 and 7 came close to meeting the criteria for a good fit. All covariances within the models were significant. The model including solely external appreciation had the lowest AIC value, indicating the best model fit. However, this model showed no significant effect of external appreciation on employee engagement, B = .08, p = .32. The unique predicted value of vertical appreciation on engagement within the model solely including vertical appreciation, B = .26, p = .01, and the model including vertical and external appreciation, B = .22, p = .03, disappeared when combining all three sources of appreciation in a model.

This model showed no unique predicted value of all three sources on employee engagement; vertical, B = .23, p = .11; horizontal, B = -.04, p = .85; external, B = .04, p = .63. Lastly, within all models, the control variables education and work-life balance satisfaction were significant predictors of employee appreciation.

Table 13 Comparison of Structural Equation Models Hypothesis 6

Hypothesis 6

Model 1: Control variables + Vertical Appr  Engagement

1078.79 459 .10 .70 .09 13934.98

Model 2: Control variables + Horizontal Appr  Engagement

850.82 320 .11 .68 .09 11758.04

Model 3: Control variables + External Appr  Engagement

712.00 246 .12 .69 .10 9088.71

Model 4: Control variables + Vertical Appr + Horizontal Appr  Engagement

1525.80 773 .08 .69 .09 18350.76

Model 5: Control variables + Vertical Appr + External Appr  Engagement

1343.87 657 .09 .68 .10 15060.83

Model 6: Control variables + Horizontal Appr + External Appr  Engagement

1047.69 489 .10 .69 .10 13053.76

Model 7: Control variables + Vertical Appr + Horizontal Appr + External Appr  Engagement

1902.05 1025 .08 .66 .09 18990.18

(28)

Seven multiple regressions were conducted with the variables solely vertical, horizontal or external appreciation, the combination of two sources and the combination of all three sources predicting employee engagement The results, illustrated in Table 14, showed that the combination of all three sources explained an additional significant 6.1% of the variance in employee engagement after controlling for gender, age, employment type, education, health satisfaction, work-life balance satisfaction and income satisfaction. Inconsistent with SEM, this model showed that vertical appreciation had a unique predicted value. The predicted value of the combination of all three sources differed insignificantly with 0% from the predicted value of solely vertical appreciation, insignificantly with 3.6% from the predicted value of solely horizontal appreciation, and significantly with 5.8% from the predicted value of solely external appreciation. The predicted value of the combination of all three sources differed insignificantly with 0% from the predicted value of the combination of vertical and horizontal and the combination of vertical and external, with only vertical appreciation having a unique predicted value. The predicted value of the combination of all three sources differed significantly with 3.6% from the predicted value of the combination of external and horizontal, with neither horizontal or external having a unique predicted value.

Table 14 Hierarchical regression analysis of Hypothesis 6

Engagement

Block 1¹ .22*** 4.41***

Model 1 .28*

Vertical Appr .21* .09 .25*

External Appr .00 .06 -.00

Model 2 .23** .00 6.36***

Vertical Appr .22** .06 .29**

Model 3 .24* .04 5.26***

Horizontal Appr .14* .07 .16*

Model 4 .22 .06* 4.10***

Model 5 .28*** .00 4.94***

Vertical Appr .21* .09 .25*

Model 6 .28*** .00 4.94***

Vertical Appr .21** .07 .26**

(29)

Model 7 .24 .04* 4.41***

Note. ¹=Block 1 is equal to regression analysis of Hypothesis 4.

Therefore, the results did not support Hypothesis 6. The combination of all three sources of employee appreciation did not lead to higher employee engagement compared to the appreciation of vertical appreciation solely or in combination with another source. Nevertheless, the combination of all three sources did lead to higher employee engagement compared to solely horizontal or external appreciation and the combination of horizontal and external. Moreover, the expectation that vertical appreciation would be the best predictor of employee engagement was supported by the results.

Discussion

The present study investigated if and how employee appreciation positively affects employees’

feelings of being appreciated and employee engagement. Thereby focussing on differences between (1) two appreciation dimension: work- and person-related appreciation; and between (2) three appreciation sources: appreciation of supervisors (vertical), co-workers (horizontal) and clients (external). The results showed a positive effect of employee appreciation on employees’ feelings of being appreciated, with person-related and vertical appreciation having a unique predicted value. This finding raised the question which other variables make employees feel appreciated. The main finding of this study is that employee appreciation positively influenced employee engagement. This effect was similar when receiving both or solely work- and person-related appreciation yet differed between appreciation sources with appreciation of supervisors having the highest predicted value on employee engagement.

The results confirmed Hypothesis 1, which stated that employee appreciation, consisting out

of six factors (work-vertical, work-horizontal, work-external, person-vertical, person-horizontal, and

person-external appreciation), positively affects employees’ feelings of being appreciated. The

expectation of Hypothesis 2 and 3 that employees who received appreciation based on both dimensions

instead of one and from all three sources instead of one or two, would feel more appreciated, was

(30)

however not supported since employees who experienced solely work- or person appreciation and solely vertical appreciation felt equally appreciated. Hypothesis 4, expecting that employee appreciation, consisting out of six factors, positively affects employee engagement, was supported.

Nevertheless, the expectation of Hypothesis 4 and 5 that employees receiving appreciation based on both dimensions instead of one and from all three sources instead of one or two, would be more engaged in their work, was not supported since employees who experienced solely work- or person appreciation and solely vertical appreciation were equally engaged in their work. These findings did however support the expectation that vertical appreciation would have the highest predicted value on employee appreciation. Moreover, the combination of all three sources still led to higher employee engagement than horizontal or external appreciation solely and combined.

There are alternative explanations for the findings regarding the unsupported hypotheses.

Firstly, when employees received both work-and person-related appreciation, solely person-related appreciation had a unique predicted value on employees’ feelings of being appreciated. This finding could indicate that the effect of work-related appreciation is dependent on person-related appreciation.

Employees might perceive solely work-related appreciation as generic since someone else performing the same work would receive the same appreciation. Person appreciation could be crucial for employees to know that they are respected, providing them with the feeling that their work-related appreciation is solely directed to them as the person behind the work.

An explanation for why the combination of the appreciation sources did not make employees

feel more appreciated compared to vertical appreciation solely or in combination with horizontal

appreciation, is related to the specific role and power of a supervisor. A power position affects

employees’ job security, rewards and punishments (Yukl, 2013) and important job resources such as

job control and role clarity (Offermann & Hellmann, 1996). These aspects can weigh higher for an

employee than a “thank you” or support from one’s co-worker or client. This explains why appreciation

of one’s supervisor plays a larger role in employees’ general feelings of being appreciated.

(31)

External appreciation had no significant effect on employees’ feelings of being appreciated and employee engagement, despite the potential appreciation scores indicating that all external appreciation situations could make employees feel appreciated. This finding could be explained by employees often having many clients, with only some showing appreciation for the respective employee. This variance in external appreciation, could explain why external appreciation does not have an effect on employees’ general feelings of being appreciated. Moreover, employees often have one supervisor which lowers the variance in vertical appreciation and could also explain the strong effect of vertical appreciation on employees’ general feelings of being appreciated. Another alternative explanation could be that since clients are not directly part of the organization, employees did not associate external appreciation to the question “How appreciated do you feel in general as an employee of GGZ Helmond”.

Lastly, the main explanation for why the combination of work- and person-related appreciation and appreciation by all three sources was not related to higher levels of employee engagement, is that the appreciation dimensions and sources separately can meet the requirements for employee engagement, namely psychological meaningfulness, safety and availability (Kahn, 1990). Thus, the dimensions and sources of employee appreciation are not supplementary in their relation with employee engagement.

These findings have several theoretical implications. First, this study supports and expands earlier literature about the nature of employee appreciation by showing that the employee appreciation variable consisting out of thirty items indicating ways to express employee appreciation (Graham &

Unruh, 1990; Brun & Dugas, 2008; Stocker et al., 2014; Chapman & White, 2011), possessed high

scale reliability, construct and content validity. Moreover, the potential appreciation scores showed

that all thirty items were able to make employees feel appreciated. However, employees at GGZ

Helmond received relatively little employee appreciation but felt fairly appreciated, which resulted in

employee appreciation only predicting 29.2% of employees’ general feelings of being appreciated.

(32)

This suggests that there are more variables influencing how appreciated employees feel. For example, one’s self-esteem could affect how appreciated an employee feels, since individuals low in self-esteem need more acknowledgement in order to feel included (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995) and more negatively evaluate how they are perceived by others (Murray, Holmes & Griffin, 2000), compared to individuals high in self-esteem. Therefore, employees low in self-esteem might require more employee appreciation in order to feel equally appreciated. Thus, the question raised whether there are other variables influencing how appreciated employees feel, and if which ones, is of theoretical importance.

In addition to literature showing that employee appreciation can be work- and person-related (Brun & Dugas, 2008), the current findings showed solely person-related appreciation having a unique predicted value on feeling appreciated when combined with work-related appreciation. This finding is of theoretical importance for comprehending the interaction between work and person employee appreciation. Contrary to the findings of Stocker and colleagues (2014) indicating that all three appreciation sources are important for employees to feel appreciated, the current study showed that the three sources were not equally important and that vertical appreciation had the highest contribution and external appreciation no contribution to employees’ feelings of being appreciated and employee engagement.