Employee engagement has become a hot topic in recent years among consulting firms and in the popular business press. High levels of work engagement are when employees are involved with, committed to, enthusiastic, and passionate about their work. However many companies now have to face the high turnover rate yearly including Viettel Group which has been over 25 years developing from a small company with less than 100 employees to a huge telecommunication group in Vietnam with 25.000 employees worldwide in more than 10 countries and regions. And now the turnover rate is a big challenge for Viettel. To investigate of factors impact on employee engagement may help my Group to plan a good policy in the future.
As a lot of past works have argued that employee engagement can be observed by employee turnover, customer satisfaction – loyalty, safety, and to some degree, productivity and profitability criteria etc.. However, past researches have seldom considered other directly features of employee engagement. To overcome these limitations, a new theoretical model incorporating principal of social exchange theory and social identity theory is developed to investigate the factors impact on employee engagement in Viettel Group. To validate this model, the research used quantitative methods, questionnaires to interview and used the SPSS 20 to analyze the results. Total 545 surveys have been collected between July and August 2016 with 487 qualified surveys, equivalent to a successful rate of 89.4%. The most important factor found is Job Promotion, followed by Teamwork, Payment and Working Condition. Some discussion and useful recommendations are proposed in this research.

Employee engagement has become a hot topic in recent years among consulting firms and in the popular business press. High levels of work engagement are when employees are involved with, committed to, enthusiastic, and passionate about their work. However many companies now have to face the high turnover rate yearly including Viettel Group which has been over 25 years developing from a small company with less than 100 employees to a huge telecommunication group in Vietnam with 25.000 employees worldwide in more than 10 countries and regions. And now the turnover rate is a big challenge for Viettel. To investigate of factors impact on employee engagement may help my Group to plan a good policy in the future.
As a lot of past works have argued that employee engagement can be observed by employee turnover, customer satisfaction – loyalty, safety, and to some degree, productivity and profitability criteria etc.. However, past researches have seldom considered other directly features of employee engagement. To overcome these limitations, a new theoretical model incorporating principal of social exchange theory and social identity theory is developed to investigate the factors impact on employee engagement in Viettel Group. To validate this model, the research used quantitative methods, questionnaires to interview and used the SPSS 20 to analyze the results. Total 545 surveys have been collected between July and August 2016 with 487 qualified surveys, equivalent to a successful rate of 89.4%. The most important factor found is Job Promotion, followed by Teamwork, Payment and Working Condition. Some discussion and useful recommendations are proposed in this research.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I
ABSTRACT II
Contents III
Tables V
Figures VII
Chapter1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background and Motivation 1
1.1.1 Introduction about Viettel Group 1
1.2 Purpose 6
1.3 Research Scope and Limitations 6
1.4 Structure of The Thesis 6
Chapter 2 Literature Review 8
2.1 Significance of Study 8
2.1.1 Definition of Employee Engagement 8
2.1.2 Role of Employee Engagement 8
2.1.3 Determinants of Employee Engagement 10
2.2 Theories of Employee Engagement 23
2.2.1 Maslow’s Need Theory 23
2.2.2 Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory 25
2.2.3 ERG Theory 27
2.2.4 Mcgregor’s Theories X and Y 29
2.3 Summary 30
Chapter 3 Research Methodology 32
3.1 Research Design 32
3.1.1 Quantitative Research 32
3.1.2 Qualitative Research 32
3.2 Research Framework and Hypotheses 33
3.2.1 Research Framework 33
3.2.2 Hypothesis 33
3.3 Research Process 33
3.4 Research Methodology 36
3.5 Population and Sampling 36
3.5.1 Population 36
3.5.2 Sampling 36
3.6 Data Analysis Techniques 37
3.7 Questionnaire 37
3.7.1 Questionnaire Interview 37
Chapter 4 Research Results and Analysis 40
4.1 Demographic Information 40
4.2 Reliability Analysis 42
4.3 Factor Analysis (EFA) 49
4.3.1 EFA for independent variables 49
4.3.2 EFA for dependent variables 51
4.4 Regression Analysis 52
4.5 Descriptive Analysis 53
Chapter 5 Implications, Conclusions and Recommendations 58
5.1 Conclusions 58
5.2 Recommendations 59
5.2.1 With Job Promotion 59
5.2.2 With Teamwork 59
5.3 Limitation of This Study 59
5.4 Suggestion for Further Study 60
References 61
Attachment 64
APPENDEX 1: QUESTION LIST 64
APPENDEX 2: BẢNG CÂU HỎI 67

I. English
1. Alan M. Saks, 2007, ‘Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement’, pp 600- 615.
2. Aon Hewitt, ‘2015 – Trend in Global Employee Engagement’, pp 3-12.
3. Ahn, H. 2001, ‘Applying the Balanced Scorecard Concept: An Experience Report’, Long Rang Planning, vol. 34, pp. 441-461.
4. A.H. Maslow (1954) Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper & Row, pp. 23-33.
5. Arnold B. Bakker, 2008, ‘Towards A Model of Work Engagement’, page 209-230.
6. Allied Academies, ‘Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict’, Vol 10, Number 1, page 53.
7. Addison, John T. ‘The Determinants of Firm Performance: Unions, Works Councils, and Employee Involvement/High Performance Work Practices’, No. 1620 June 2005, page 66.
8. Bakotic, D., & Babic, T. B. (2013, February). Relationship between Working Conditions and Job Satisfaction: The Case of Croatian Shipbuilding Company. International Journal of Business and Social Science, page 206-213.
9. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmit & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations, pp. 71-98
10. Bakotic, D., & Babic, T. B. (2013, February). Relationship between Working Conditions and Job Satisfaction: The Case of Croatian Shipbuilding Company. International Journal of Business and Social Science, page 206-213.
11. Bartlett, Kenneth R. (2001). The Relationship Between Training and Organizational Commitment: A Study in the Health Care Field. Human Resource Development Quarterly, page 335-352.
12. Bakker, A.B. (2009). Building engagement in the workplace. In R. J. Burke & C.L. Cooper (Eds.), The peak performing organization, pp. 50-72.
13. Campbell, J. P., McHenry, J. J., & Wise, L. L. (1990). Modeling job performance in a population of jobs. Personnel Psychology, page 43, 313-333.
14. Chandrasekar, K. (2011, January). Workplace Environment and Its Impact Organizational Performance in Public Sector organizations. International Journal of Enterprise Computing and Business Systems, 1(1), page 1-19.
15. C.R. Reilly (1991) Organizational Behavior. Annual Review of Psychology, pp 427- 458.
16. Catherine Ndanu Mutunga, 2009, ‘Factors That Contribute to The Level of Employee Engagement in The Telecommunication Industry in Kenya: A Case Study of Zain Kenya’, page 50-61.
17. Cheng E. W. L. Ho D. C. K. (2001). The influence of job and career attitudes on learning motivation and transfer. Career Development International, page 6, 20-27
18. Darrell Rigby, ‘Management Tool & Trend 2013’, page 5 -30.
19. Dorothea Wahyu Ariani, ‘The Relationship between Employee Engagement, Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Counterproductive Work Behavior’, No. 43, page 56-60.
20. F. Friedlander, and N. Margulies (1969) Multiple Impacts of Organization Climate and Individual Values System upon Job Satisfaction, Personnel Psychology. 22, page 177-183.
21. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler III, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, page 55, 259-286.
22. Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparison of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, page 49, 305-325.
23. Petterson, I. a. (1998). Psychological stressors and well-being in health careworkers: the impact of an intervention program, page1763– 72.
24. Philip Mirvis, 2012, ‘Employee Engagement and CSR: Transactional, Relational, And Developmental Approaches’, Vol. 54, No. 4, page 35-38.
25. Thoresen, C. J., Kapalan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, page 914-945.
26. Robert J. Vance, 2005, ‘Employee Engagement and Commitment: A Guide to Understanding, Measuring and Increasing Engagement in Your Organization’, page 55.
27. Thoresen, C. J., Kapalan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, page 914-945.
28. Theresa M. Welbourne, 2015, ‘Employee Engagement: Beyond The Fad and into The Executive Suite’, page 50-73.
29. Emma Ruth Karanges, ‘Optimising Employee Engagement with Internal Communication: A Social Exchange Perspective’, April, 2014, page 35-45.
30. Nancy R. Lockwood, Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage (2007), page 2-11.
31. Siobhain O’Riordan, ‘The Coaching Psychologist - Volume 7, No. 1, June 2011’, page 5-11.
32. Graham Lowe, 2012, ‘How Employee Engagement Matters for Hospital Performance’, Vol.15 No.2, page 30-51.
33. Solomon Markos, 2010, ‘Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance’, Vol. 5, No. 12, page 25.
34. Samuel Obino Mokaya, ‘Journal of Human Resources Management and Labor Studies’, June 2014, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 187-200.
35. Y. Kathawala, M. Kevin and E. Dean (1990) Preference between Salary or Job Security Increase. International Journal of Manpower. page 11.
36. Justine Ferrer, 2005, ‘Employee Engagement: Is it organisational commitment renamed?’, page 52-61.
37. Wells, M. M. (2000). Office clutter or meaningful personal displays: The role of office personalization in employee and organizational well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 3, page 239–255
38. Wang C. H. (2001). Individual and contextual influences on multiple dimensions of training effectiveness. Journal of European Industrial Training, 20, page 282-290.
39. William H. Macey, 2008, ‘Industrial and Organizational Psychology’, page 3–30.
40. Zobal C (1998). The ideal team compensation system – an overview: Part I. Team Perform. Manage, 4(5), page 235-249.
II. Website
1. https://getfly.vn/blog/infographic-thoi-quen-nhay-viec-o-viet-nam-khao-sat-cua-vietnamwork-n140.html
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_research