Abstract

The current study aims to examine the influence of bundles of development and maintenance HR practices on employee’s behavior of work engagement through learning goal orientation. Sample size of study was 370. Data were collected from different Pakistan oil refineries through a self-administered questionnaire and were analyzed through covariance-based SEM by using AMOS. Findings of study confirmed the proposed study associations and revealed that both development and maintenance HR practices are positively and significantly associated with employee’s behavior of work engagement and learning goal orientation partially mediates between the association of bundles of HR practices (development and maintenance) and work engagement. The authors contribute to the stream of knowledge by explicating the overall additive impact of segregated bundles of the development and maintenance HR practices on work engagement through mediating effect of learning goal orientation between HR bundles and work engagement. Present study forwards implications for both theory and practice.

Key Words

Development HR Practices, Maintenance HR Practices, Learning Goal Orientation,       Work Engagement.

Introduction

Human resource management (HRM) play crucial role in bringing socio-economic development of firms and states (Pham, 2020). Over the period of last two decades, effectiveness and significance of HRM system for firms has been progressively acknowledged more by academics and practitioners. Previous body of knowledge has substantiated the relationship between HR systems (often stated as high performance work practices) and organizational performance (Kroon et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2007). Recently, focus of researchers has been shifted towards investigating the processes that account for transforming impacts of HR system on organizational performance. Several researchers, while theorizing the linkage between HR system and performance have proposed that organizational performance is contingent upon line up of HR practices through mediating mechanisms, such as, improving organizational climate (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004) and individual-level processes like employee’s attitudes and

behaviors (Korff et al., 2017; Pak & Kim, 2018). 

In order to better comprehend contribution of HR system to shape employee’s individual-level outcomes that eventually result in improving performance and achieving organizational goals, additional research is required for examining and highlighting possible mediating relationships between HR systems and performance (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004). Therefore, in this study, we aim to address these issues and direct our research efforts in developing a research model by drawing upon regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) to conceptually segregate two distinct HR bundles on the basis of employee’s perceptions, which are development and maintenance HR practices. Previously, it has been advocated that high performance work related HR practices put stronger impacts on outcomes that are related to employees than the organizational outcomes (Zhang & Morris, 2014). That is why, we evaluate the associations between these HR bundles and employee’s work related behavioral outcome of work engagement.

Work engagement, an employee’s prominent behavior related to work is widely renowned since it contributes to driving positive impacts on positive outcomes including performance (Borst et al., 2020; Gil-Beltrán et al., 2020). Despite validation of hefty empirical focus on employee’s work engagement (Bakker & Sanz-Vergel, 2013; Meng et al., 2020), less attention has been paid towards prominent predictors of employee’s work engagement (Kura et al., 2015). Specifically, how work engagement of employees can be promoted through HR practices is an under researched area (Ahmed et al., 2015; Zhu et al., 2009), which arises need to fill this gap by exploring its precursors (Bakker & Albrecht, 2018; Woods & Sofat, 2013). Therefore, core objective of present study is to address these shortcomings by shedding empirical light and exploring the relationship between HR bundles and work engagement on grounds of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964).

Likewise, empirical evidence is insightful in highlighting that employee’s learning goal orientation has substantial importance since it enhances employee’s expertise, skills acquisition and creativity (Gong et al., 2013). Employees with high learning orientation are mostly involved in challenging and progressive activities and are associated with several positive outcomes including work engagement (Matsuo, 2019). Concerning the positive outcomes of learning goal orientation, researchers are attempting to examine those aspects that boost employee’s learning goal orientation, including human resource management (Runhaar et al., 2019). However, despite considerable research and mounting interest of scholars on the topic (D’Amato & Baruch, 2020), empirical focus is still limited and fragmented in nature and calls for better comprehension of its antecedents (Froehlich, 2015) and outcomes (Vandewalle, Nerstad & Dysvik, 2019). Therefore, we aim to examine its mediating effect between HR bundles and work engagement. 

Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses

Development and Maintenance HR Practices: Regulatory Focus Theory

Individual HR practices that formulate HR bundles support each other and create 

substantially greater combined synergistic impacts on outcomes as compare to individual best HR practices (Jiang et al., 2012). Elaborating on the regulatory focus theory, we differentiate between bundles of development and maintenance HR practices and adopt them from study of Kooij et al. (2010). Regulatory focus theory is recognized as a valuable theoretical lens while investigating employee’s motivation to chase their goals as well preferences for exhibiting numerous strategic actions (Higgins, 2012) and defined as a process in which people align themselves with their already set goals and objectives (Higgins, 1997). This theory emphasizes on hedonistic principle that claims people tend to indulge in behavioral approach of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain and differentiates between self-regulation conceptions of promotion and prevention. Individuals with a promotion focus concern about hopes, accomplishment, growth and progression by regulating their behavior in achieving goals through accomplishing gains, whereas those with prevention focus concern about responsibilities and security by regulating their behavior in goal attainment through avoiding mistakes and losses (Higgins, 1997). Therefore, on the basis of this theory and in line with previous studies (Gong et al., 2009), we distinguish and conceptualize two different bundles as development HR practices (i.e. promotion) and maintenance HR practices (i.e. prevention). Bundle of development HR practices (promotion focus) is about job enrichment and includes HR practices of employee training, continuous development on the job, career planning, mentoring and coaching, horizontal job changes, job movement, job redesign, job development interviews, sabbatical leaves and health check. While, set of maintenance HR practices tends to center on job alleviation and includes practices of performance appraisal, flexible work arrangement, salary and rewards, ergonomic adjustments and health & safety training, early retirement, demotion, exemption from over time, additional leave, courses to keep up to date and working part-time, participation in decision making and empowerment (Kooij et al., 2010). Both facets of regulatory focus differ in the strategies to attain goals but both dimensions have been shown to influence success (Brockner et al., 2004).




HR Bundles and Work Engagement

Work engagement of employees has come up as a prominent concept in literature of management and applied psychology. It’s a positive, fulfilling and pervasive work related state of mind that is described as vigor, absorption and dedication (Schaufeli et al., 2002). Highly engaged employees work enthusiastically, exhibit high involvement and keenness in their work (Bakker et al., 2008). Previous empirical literature has shown its positive association with numerous outcomes, for instance innovate behavior (Orth & Volmer, 2017) and team performance (Costa et al., 2015) etc. 

Drawing upon social exchange theory, we lay theoretical foundation for the proposed association of study between HR bundles and work engagement. Social exchange theory asserts that the foremost drive for social behavior is a consequence of an exchange process and interpersonal relationship that depends on satisfaction of interest among both groups/parties, i.e. employees and their organization. Viewpoint of social exchange theory affirms that when employees have satisfaction with what they receive from their organization (e.g. in form of development and maintenance HR practices), in exchange they will exhibit positive work related attitude and behavior towards their organization, such as employee’s high work engagement level (Karatepe, 2013).

Empirical evidence has shown that development HR practices like job enrichment, training, mentoring, coaching and career planning (Kooij et al., 2010) are positively associated with employee’s work engagement. Job enrichment is linked with enhancing work engagement of employees (Barik & Kochar, 2017). Training and work engagement have found to be positively linked (Memon et al., 2016). When employees are satisfied with the mentoring they receive, their work engagement level increases (Baran & Sypniewska, 2019). Likewise, coaching (Altunel et al., 2015) and career planning (Bujacz et al., 2017) have also found to be positively associated with work engagement.

Hence, on foundations of aforementioned theoretical and empirical grounds, present study expects that development HR practices and employee’s work engagement are positively related. In former studies, empirical evidence has revealed that the individual development HR practices and employee’s work engagement are positively associated but the impact of overall bundle of development HR practices on work engagement of employees is absent. Therefore, present study addresses that need and derives that:

Hypothesis 1: Bundle of development HR practices has a direct and positive impact on employee’s work engagement.

Previous literature has indicated that maintenance HR practices like performance appraisal, empowerment, rewards and compensation, flexible work arrangement, ergonomic adjustment and health and safety training (Kooij et al., 2010) are positively associated with employee’s work engagement. Performance appraisal helps employees in discovering areas for their improvements that ultimately results in rewards and increases high work engagement level (Memon et al., 2019). Empowerment is found to be an antecedent of work engagement (Amor et al., 2020). Empirical studies revealed that high rewards and recognition results in enhancement of work engagement (Hua et al., 2020). Flexible work arrangements are found to be positively related with employee’s engagement (Sekhar et al., 2018). Health and safety training also contribute in enhancing work engagement (Reader et al., 2017). Empirical research has highlighted the impacts of individual maintenance HR practices on employee’s work engagement but lacks the overall impact of bundle of maintenance HR practices on work engagement. Therefore, on grounds of theoretical rationale of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and empirical evidence, we expect a positive relation between bundle of maintenance HR practices and employee’s work engagement and derive that:

Hypothesis 2: Bundle of maintenance HR practices has a direct and positive impact on employee’s work engagement.




Learning Goal Orientation: Mediation between HR Bundles and Work Engagement

Goal orientation reveals individual’s beliefs of self-development and has been defined as situational or dispositional preferences about goal of a person in situations of achievement (Dweck, 1986; Payne et al., 2007) and categorized into learning and performance goal orientation (Dweck, 1986). Learning goal orientation has been defined as an individual’s aspiration and internal mindset that motivates him/her for self-development and results from pursuing development of competency through new skills acquisition and getting mastery over tasks (VandeWalle, 1997). It has also been conceptualized as a disposition that motivates, one’s devotion and readiness for developing individual competence (Gong, Huang & Farh, 2009). Employees with high learning goal orientation strive to view feedback by putting considerable efforts towards problem-solving activities and use that feedback to improve their expertise to succeed (VandeWalle et al., 2001), tend to exhibit proactive and learning behavior (Chughtai & Buckley, 2011), have high self-efficacy (Payne et al., 2007) and pursue feedback more often (Parker & Collins, 2010). 

Social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) offers a strong framework that elucidates the association between HR bundles and learning goal orientation of employees. Its viewpoint asserts that learning takes place through observation and modelling in a social setting and embroils cognitive and mental processes. Bandura asserted that learning involves different steps, which are attention, retention, reproduction and motivation. At initial attention stage, a learner needs paying attention towards those behaviors that he/she intends to imitate. Secondly, there is need to retain whatever learner has observed through cognitive process of mental rehearsing of the behavior that he/she intends to reproduce. At third stage, they seek for opportunity to convert or reproduce that learned behavior into action and finally learner seek for motivation to practically execute that learned behavior. Learner receives motivation through direct, self and vicarious reinforcement. The proposed linkage between HR bundles (development and maintenance) and learning goal orientation can be elucidated on the grounds of social learning theory, since it ascertains regarding learning and asserts that learning occurs through observing others in a social context. When HR department in organization will act like a role model through provision and execution of development and maintenance HR practices and a supportive work culture to their workforce, in reciprocation, employee’s cognitive process of observing, imitating the role model and learning will take place and in this way they will be inclined more towards behavior of learning goal orientation.

Past literature has revealed that different development HR practices, like training and mentoring are positively correlated with learning. Training by organization essentially expedite learning process by providing opportunities to get additional insights with an aim of enhancing employee’s skills and expertise (Hayat et al., 2019). Mentoring and coaching also enhance learning of individual (Jones, 2015). Development HR practice of job redesigning influence cognitive intent of employees that assists them in developing learning strategies (Rubin & Brown, 2019). Likewise, empirical evidence revealed that different maintenance HR practices are also positively associated with learning, such as, performance appraisal and learning are found to have positive associations (Kamau, 2019). Other maintenance HR practices are also positively linked with learning, for instance, occupational health and safety programs (Ricci et al., 2016), rewards (Hidi, 2016), participation in decision making (Saha & Kumar, 2017) and empowerment (Al-Omari et al., 2020). Although, past literature has revealed about relationship between individual development and maintenance HR practices and learning but how the overall HR bundle of development and maintenance HR practices put additive impact on employee’s learning goal orientation needs to be answered.

Therefore, on theoretical and empirical basis, we expect development and maintenance HR practices are linked positively with employee’s learning goal orientation. As an exchange of increase in learning goal orientation of employees, present study expects enhancement of employee’s work engagement on grounds of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964). Previous literature also supported that learning goal orientation results in enhancing work engagement (Jones et al., 2017; Mehmood et al., 2016).  Therefore, taken together, we attempt to analyze that linkage and derive that:

Hypothesis 3: Learning goal orientation mediates between the bundle of development HR practices and work engagement.

Hypothesis 4: Learning goal orientation mediates between the bundle of maintenance HR practices and work engagement.

Materials and Methods

Procedure and Sample

Present study has conducted research in oil refineries of Pakistan. Data were collected at individual level from staff performing duties in departments of HR, planning/operation, maintenance and technical, finance and production. Respondents were working at executive and management job levels including senior and junior management staff and were at least higher secondary school certificate (HSSC) holders. Data were gathered from technical staff too who were diploma holders. 

Sample size of present study was 370 and determined on the basis of the N: q rule (where N is individual observations and q is about model parameters) by Jackson (2007). We used a non-probability convenient sampling technique because it helped us in data collection that was otherwise not possible through adopting other sampling methods. Data were collected through self-administered survey and emails by using instrument of questionnaire from twin cities of Islamabad and Rawalpindi. Data were obtained from some other cities in Pakistan too, including Karachi through email. We could access the geographically dispersed population by means of email and respondents replied the questionnaire upon their convenience. This format of email reduces social desirability bias (Heerwegh, 2009). We floated 600 questionnaires for data collection and received 408 questionnaires back in a period of three months. We excluded the incomplete and unrecovered surveys and left with 370 sample size that were useful in study. Response rate of survey was 61.66%. 

Common-method bias in data was dealt at ex-ante and ex-post stage of research design. At the ex-ante research design stage, we collected data at different point of time to ensure spurious correlations are not present in data set due to common-method variance (Chang et al., 2010). Respondents were given assurance of confidentiality and anonymity. We requested them to respond honestly. Furthermore, items of instrument were precise and clear. Afterwards, at the ex-post stage, we used Harman's one-factor test through principal component analysis in SPSS. Result showed that one factor accounted for 37.046 % of the variance (i.e. < 50 %) and no single factor emerged in the data. Most of the variance was not explained by the first factor (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Since, two underlying assumptions did not meet, hence significant method concerns were not present in the data set.




Measures 

Questionnaire was used as an instrument for assessing the study constructs by adopting a seven point Likert-type scale from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly agree’ (7).  

Measure of development and maintenance HR practices were adopted from research work done by Kooij et al. (2013) who developed a scale to assess employee’s perceptions about both development and maintenance HR practices. Respondents were asked whether they received these HR practices within the period of last 12 months. Measuring scale consists of eight HR practices. Four of them assessed development HR practices (e.g. “During the past 12 months have you had formal training to develop knowledge and skills for future jobs?”) and rest four items assessed maintenance HR practices (e.g. “During the past 12 months have you had opportunities to give ideas for improvements?).

Learning goal orientation of employees was assessed through 3 items that were adopted from a study of D'Amato and Herzfeldt (2008). For instance, a sample item is “it is important to me to learn on the job”.

Work engagement was measured by a widely accepted 9 item short version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale that was developed by Schaufeli et al. (2006) e.g. “I am enthusiastic about my job.” 

In order to make sure that the proposed study relationship between predictor and response variables is not confounded, we controlled the demographic variables including gender (1= male, 2= female), age (1= less than 30 years, 2= 30-40 years, 3= 41-50 years, 4= 51-60 years, 5= more than 60 years), tenure in organization (1= less than one year, 2= 1-5 years, 3= 6-10 years, 4= 11-20 years, 5= more than 20 years) and education (1= Higher Secondary School Certificate, 2= bachelor’s degree, 3= master’s degree, 4= doctoral degree and 5=Diploma holder).

Statistical Analysis

Data analysis was done in three steps, including analysis of missing values and outliers,

measurement and structural model.

At first step, missing values, outliers, normality and multi-collinearity were examined in the data. Outliers and skewed data were treated through adoption of mathematical data transformation procedure. Data transformations procedure can be used for dealing with normality, linearity, homoscedasticity and outliers in data (Hair et al., 2010). Subsequently, we analyzed and interpreted data results in two stages, which are measurement model and the structural model (Ullman & Bentler, 2003).

Measurement model assessed the associations between observed items and the latent variables in terms of item reliability and internal consistency as well as convergent and discriminant validity. We performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) through technique of structural equation modeling (SEM) in Amos. Model fitness was assessed through an adjusted ?2 test, RMSEA, i.e. a root mean square error of approximation (Kline, 2015), CFI, i.e. a comparative fit index, SRMR, i.e. standardized root mean square residual and the TLI, i.e. Tucker-Lewis Index (Tucker & Lewis, 1973). Later, validity analysis of the CFA model was examined to assess goodness-of-fit (Cheung & Rensvold, 2002). Afterwards, correlation analysis was done to examine the association between predictor and response variables. 

At third stage, model fitness of structural model was assessed and path analysis was done on the basis of estimation of significance of the path coefficients in Amos. Mediation analysis was done through bootstrapping technique (Preacher & Hayes, 2008).

Results

Measurement Model

As mentioned above, we performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by using structural equation modeling (SEM). Fit indices revealed that the acceptance criteria was achieved, and proposed study measurement model fitted the data of present study well, i.e. RMSEA < 0.08 = 0.053, CMIN/d.f < 3.00 =2.026, TLI >0.9= 0.967, CFI > 0.9 = 0.971 and SRMR < 0.05 = 0.040. Afterwards we did the reliability and validity analysis (reported in Table 1). Factor loading/ indicator reliability was assessed. Values of factor loadings (i.e., the standardized regression weight showing the association of variable and indicator) were above the accepted required criterion of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2010). Values of cronbach-alpha and Composite Reliability (Internal consistency reliability) in addition to convergent validity i.e., Average Variance Extracted (AVE) were examined. Results showed that values of Cronbach-alpha and the composite reliability indices were greater than 0.7, which fulfills the acceptance criteria. Results showed that criterion was also fulfilled for AVE, since values of AVE are over 0.




 

Construct	Item	Loading	Cronbach-alpha	Composite Reliability (CR)	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)
Development HR Practices	DHR1	0.924	0.947	0.947	0.818
	DHR2	0.926
	DHR3	0.877
	DHR4	0.889
Maintenance HR Practices	MHR1	0.851	0.929	0.929	0.767
	MHR2	0.882
	MHR3	0.886
	MHR4	0.884
Learning Goal Orientation	LGO1	0.866	0.860	0.866	0.686
	LGO2	0.701
	LGO3	0.903
Work Engagement	WE1	0.737	0.940	0.941	0.639
	WE2	0.816
	WE3	0.801
	WE4	0.769
	WE5	0.768
	WE6	0.787
	WE7	0.828
	WE8	0.820
	WE9	0.862




Cross-weight validity analysis for assessing the discriminant validity showed that the indices' correlation was greater in comparison to their latent construct in the case of every variable (see Table 2). That’s why, we concluded that this criterion was also accepted.




 

Table 2. Correlation matrix

Construct	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4
Development HR Practices	5.80	1.33	0.90
Maintenance HR Practices	6.25	0.92	0.34**	0.88
Learning Goal Orientation	6.49	0.73	0.19**	0.18**	0.83
Work Engagement	6.27	0.75	0.47**	0.35**	0.25**	0.8

Therefore, conformance of model fit indices, reliability and validity analysis shows that the measurement model of study is acceptable.

 




Hypotheses Testing

Model fitness was examined that indicated that hypothesized research model of present study fitted the data well. Fit indices are: RMSEA = 0.053, CMIN/d.f =2.026, TLI = 0.967, CFI = 0.971 and SRMR = 0.040. Later, path analysis (hypothesis testing) was done in AMOS. Findings revealed that at 1% level of significance, the data of present study had provided satisfactory evidence to conclude that the predictor variables development and maintenance HR practices have a direct and significant positive impact on the response variable work engagement. Therefore, Hypotheses 1 and 2 received support (see Table 3).




 

Table 3. Regression weights

Path	Estimate	Standard Error	Critical Ratio	P-Value
DHRàWE	0.232	0.031	7.428	***
MHRàWE	0.158	0.044	3.599	***

Note: *** P-value<0.01

 




Bootstrap estimates of the mediating effect of learning goal orientation between development and maintenance HR practices and work engagement also received support at 5% level of significance. Results are reported in Table 4.




 

Table 4. Bootstrap Estimates of the Indirect effect of both Bundles on work Engagement with Standard errors and 95% Confidence Bounds

Path	Indirect Effect	Bias corrected 95% confidence interval
		Lower Bound	Upper Bound	(2-Tailed Significance)
DHRàLGOàWE	0.016	0.004	0.039	0.01
MHRàLGOàWE	0.022	0.003	0.061	0.03

 




Findings of study has shown that values of the control variables are statistically non-significant for dependent variable work engagement, i.e. gender (? = 0.194; t =1.612; p > 0.05), age (? =0.003; t =0.061; p > 0.05), tenure in organization (? = 0.012; t = 0.311; p > 0.05) and education (? = 0.010; t = 0.298; p > 0.05).

Discussion

Findings of present study has emphasized and supported the proposed associations between the hypothesized study model and provided further evidence on the role of social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1977). In order to assess behavior of work engagement that results in numerous positive outcomes, first research question was to address how work engagement can be enhanced though HR bundles on grounds of social exchange theory. Statistical findings have revealed that development HR practices are influential in enhancing employee’s work engagement. Second objective of study was to examine the impact of bundle of maintenance HR practices on work engagement. Results have offered us substantiation to understand that bundle of maintenance HR practices also plays important part in boosting work engagement of employees. Drawing upon social learning theory, third research question was to determine how employee’s learning goal orientation can be enhanced through HR bundles, which in turn was expected to result in boosting work engagement of employees. Results have declared that both HR bundles, i.e. development and maintenance play significant role in augmenting employee’s learning goal orientation, which in turn enhances employee’s level of work engagement. Therefore, both segregated HR bundles are rewarding and effective in enhancing work engagement through learning goal orientation.

Present study suggests multifold theoretical contributions. In consistent with the past studies (Jason & Geetha, 2019; Korff et al., 2017), findings of our study echoes that application of regulatory focus theory to the dynamic workplace settings has prominent outcomes and endorse that both promotion and prevention regulatory foci in employees have importance for present business dynamics. Our study has chiefly recognized with regard to the Pakistan’s context that distinctive emphasis on self-regulation of employees through offering them bundles of development HR practices (promotion foci) and maintenance HR practices (prevention foci) contributes towards employee’s individual outcomes.

Secondly, this paper has enriched better understanding concerning the critical role and influence of HR bundles of development and maintenance in predicting employee’s work engagement. While confirming the conceptions of social exchange theory, present study has extended the body of knowledge in the field of employee’s work engagement behavior by contributing through empirically examining the overall additive impact of bundles of development and maintenance HR practices in 

increasing work engagement level of employees. In this manner, through responding calls of previous studies (e.g. Ahmed et al., 2017; Woods & Sofat, 2013), we have responded the identified research gaps in this domain. 

Thirdly, this study is the first one to bridge the gap highlighted by previous studies (for instance Froehlich, 2015), in the area of body of knowledge regarding learning goal orientation by exploring how development and maintenance HR bundles enhance employee’s learning goal orientation and its impact on work engagement behavior. In doing so, present study has contributed by underlining the combined effect of HR bundles on employee’s learning goal orientation and substantiated the underlying conception of social learning theory. Henceforth, this study has effectively laid emphasis on considerable prospects in order to comprehend multipurpose HR practices and their additive influence on employee’s behaviors and has broaden research perspectives in HRM field.

Present study has numerous practical implications too that can be traced for management, policy makers and entrepreneurs. It provides an instrumental framework that has examined the role of bundles of human resource practices in furthering employee’s disposition of learning goal orientation and behavior of work engagement. Findings of this paper insist that management should be well aware of the differential impacts of the general HR practices that they offer to their employees, since the development and execution of both HR bundles are empirically substantiated as worthy. HR specialists and professionals should capitalize upon developmental and maintenance HR resources, since they will stimulate employees psychologically for predicting their work engagement that ultimately results in numerous positive outcomes. Likewise, previous research evidence accumulates regarding employee’s learning goal orientation and its strategic role in bringing promising outcomes including proactive behavior (Parker & Collins, 2010). Results of current study demonstrate that management and organizations are encouraged for designing explicitly and implicitly such a work environment where they can execute HR bundles (development and maintenance) to support and promote learning culture for enhancing employee’s learning goal orientation that would ultimately result in boosting work engagement.

In spite of finding interesting results of questions highlighted and answered in present study, it holds some important limitations that offer new avenues for future research. First, we adopted a cross-sectional research design, which restricts inferring causal explanations from relations hypothesized and tested in current study. In future, longitudinal research design should be adopted to further strengthen and support results of the present study. Second, respondent’s self-reporting can be another study limitation that may have inflated the associations among predictor and response variables, which results in common method variance. Though, we have tried to minimize these issues through adopting different ex-ante and ex-post strategies to encounter common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). In future, scholars are encouraged to employ other approaches like focus group approach or qualitative techniques. Third, results of present study has put generalizability into question, since it has examined the proposed associations of study model in the oil refineries of Pakistan. That is why, we suggest additional examination across different industries such as health and information technology etc. to overcome generalizability concerns. Lastly, it was not an objective of present study to find the moderating impact of demographics on associations between HR bundles of development and maintenance HR practices and employee’s work engagement. Present study encourages scholars to determine them through their scholarly empirical work in future. 

Conclusion

The findings of present study showcase precise channels of HR bundles of development and maintenance HR practices for amplification of work engagement of employees through learning goal orientation in order to realize further corporate goals and objectives. Since study results highlighted significance of both the development and maintenance HR bundles, therefore, to reap promising outcomes, HR practices of both development and maintenance bundles should be offered to workforce.

References

• Ahmed, U., Isa, N. M., Majid, A. H. A., Zin, M. L. M., & Amin, B. M. (2017). Towards understanding work engagement: can HR really buffer HR? Test of a moderated model. International Journal of Economic Research, 14(20), 1-18.
• Ahmed, U., Phulpoto, W., Umrani, W. A., & Abbas, S. I. (2015). Diving deep in employee training to understand employee engagement. Business and Economics Journal, 7, 1-14.
• Al-Omari, Z., Alomari, K., & Aljawarneh, N. (2020). The role of empowerment in improving internal process, customer satisfaction, learning and growth. Management Science Letters, 10(4), 841-848.
• Altunel, M. C., Kocak, O. E., & Cankir, B. (2015). The effect of job resources on work engagement: A study on academicians in Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 15(2), 409-417.
• Amor, A. M., Vázquez, J. P. A., & Faíña, J. A. (2020). Transformational leadership and work engagement: Exploring the mediating role of structural empowerment. European Management Journal, 38(1), 169-178.
• Bakker, A. B., & Albrecht, S. (2018). Work engagement: current trends. Career Development International, 23(1), 4-11.
• Bakker, A. B., & Sanz-Vergel, A. I. (2013). Weekly work engagement and flourishing: The role of hindrance and challenge job demands. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 83(3), 397-409.
• Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work & stress, 22(3), 187-200.
• Bandura, A., & McClelland, D. C. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall: Englewood cliffs
• Baran, M., & Sypniewska, B. A. (2019). The Influence of Mentoring on Work Engagement and the Relationship with the Superior in Organizations in Poland. PrzeglÄ…d Organizacji, 953(6), 52-59
• Barik, S., & Kochar, A. (2017). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement: A literature review. International Journal of Latest Technology in Engineering, Management & Applied Science, 6(4), 33- 38.
• Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
• Borst, R. T., Kruyen, P. M., Lako, C. J., & de Vries, M. S. (2020). The attitudinal, behavioral, and performance outcomes of work engagement: A comparative meta-analysis across the public, semipublic, and private sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(4), 613-640.
• Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: The role of the
• Brockner, J., Higgins, E. T., & Low, M. B. (2004). Regulatory focus theory and the entrepreneurial process. Journal of business venturing, 19(2), 203-220.
• Bujacz, A., Bernhard-Oettel, C., Rigotti, T., & Lindfors, P. (2017). Task-level work engagement of self-employed and organizationally employed high-skilled workers. Career Development International, 22(6), 724-738.
• Chang, S. J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method variance in international business research, 41, 178-184.
• Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural equation modeling, 9(2), 233-255.
• Chughtai, A. A., & Buckley, F. (2011). Work engagement: Antecedents, the mediating role of learning goal orientation and job performance. Career Development International. 16(7), 684-705.
• Costa, P. L., Passos, A. M., & Bakker, A. B. (2015). Direct and contextual influence of team conflict on team resources, team work engagement, and team performance. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 8(4), 211-227.
• D'Amato, A., & Baruch, Y. (2020). Cultural and generational predictors of learning goal orientation: A multilevel analysis of managers across 20 countries. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 20(2), 159-179.
• D'Amato, A., & Herzfeldt, R. (2008). Learning orientation, organizational commitment and talent retention across generations: A study of European managers. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 23(8), 929-953.
• Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American psychologist, 41(10), 1040-4048.
• Froehlich, D. (2015). Old and out?: age, employability, and the role of learning. Datawyse / Universitaire Pers Maastricht
• Gil-Beltrán, E., Llorens, S., & Salanova, M. (2020). Employees' Physical Exercise, Resources, Engagement, and Performance: A Cross-sectional Study from HERO Model. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 36(1) 39-47.
• Gong, Y., Huang, J. C., & Farh, J. L. (2009). Employee learning orientation, transformational leadership, and employee creativity: The mediating role of employee creative self-efficacy. Academy of management Journal, 52(4), 765-778.
• Gong, Y., Kim, T. Y., Lee, D. R., & Zhu, J. (2013). A multilevel model of team goal orientation, information exchange, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 56(3), 827-851.
• Gong, Y., Law, K. S., Chang, S., & Xin, K. R. (2009). Human resources management and firm performance: The differential role of managerial affective and continuance commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 263-275.
• Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., & Black, W. C. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective. Pearson Upper Saddle River.
• Hayat, A., Azeem, M., Nawaz, R., Hasan, M. A., & Rehman, R. A. (2019). Human resource practices as antecedents of employee performance in the hotel industry of Pakistan. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 13(4), 11-17.
• Heerwegh, D. (2009). Mode differences between face-to-face and web surveys: an experimental investigation of data quality and social desirability effects. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21(1), 111-121.
• Hidi, S. (2016). Revisiting the role of rewards in motivation and learning: Implications of neuroscientific research. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 61-93.
• Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American psychologist, 52(12), 1280- 1300.
• Higgins, E. T. (2012). Regulatory focus theory. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. Sage Publications Ltd.
• Hua, Y., Cheng, X., Hou, T., & Luo, R. (2020). Monetary rewards, intrinsic motivators, and work engagement in the IT-enabled sharing economy: A mixed-methods investigation of Internet taxi drivers. Decision Sciences, 51(3), 755-785
• Jackson, D. L. (2007). The effect of the number of observations per parameter in misspecified confirmatory factor analytic models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(1), 48-76.
• Jason, V., & Geetha, S. N. (2019). Regulatory focus and innovative work behavior: The role of work engagement. Current Psychology, 1-13.
• Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management influence organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of management Journal, 55(6), 1264-1294
• Jones, J. L., Davis, W. D., & Thomas, C. H. (2017). Is competition engaging? Examining the interactive effects of goal orientation and competitive work environment on engagement. Human Resource Management, 56(3), 389-405