\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter

\IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}%
  {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}%
  {\RequirePackage{color}}
\usepackage{colortbl}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\usepackage{ifxetex}
\ifxetex
  \usepackage{fontspec}
  \usepackage{xunicode}
  \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash}
  \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{}
  \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}}
  \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}}
  \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}}
  \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}}
  \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono}
  
\else
  \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}%
   {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc}
      \PrerenderUnicode{–}
    }%
   {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}}
  \usepackage[english]{babel}
  \usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
  \usepackage{float}
  \usepackage[]{ucs}
  \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash }
  \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{}
  \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}}
  \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}}
  \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,}
  \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ }
  \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>}
  \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}}
  \def\textJapanese{}
  \def\textChinese{}
  \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{}
\fi
\def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small}
\DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25}
\usepackage{relsize}
\RequirePackage{array}
\def\@testpach{\@chclass
 \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else
  \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else
   \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else
    \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@
   \else \z@
   \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else
   \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}%
   \@chnum
   \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else
    \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else
     \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else
   \z@ \@chclass
   \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else
    \if \@nextchar !6 \else
     \if \@nextchar @7 \else
      \if \@nextchar (8 \else
       \if \@nextchar )9 \else
  10
  \@chnum
  \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else
   \if \@nextchar p4 \else
    \if \@nextchar b5 \else
   \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi
   \fi \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi  \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi}
\gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr}
\def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}}
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\def\abbr{}
\def\corr{}
\def\expan{}
\def\gap{}
\def\orig{}
\def\reg{}
\def\ref{}
\def\sic{}
\def\persName{}\def\name{}
\def\placeName{}
\def\orgName{}
\def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}}
\def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}}
\def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}}
\def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}}
\def\textquoted#1{‘#1’}
\def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}}
\def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}}
\def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}}
\def\titlem{\itshape}
\newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{bibl}{}{}
\newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi }
\newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par }
\newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par}
\newenvironment{rubric}{}{}
\newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par }

\newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}}
\newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}}
\newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}}
\definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75}
\def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}}
\DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@}
\def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}}
\begingroup
\catcode`\_=\active
\gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}}
\endgroup
\mathcode`\_=\string"8000
\catcode`\_=12\relax

\usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry}
\usepackage{framed}

\definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage[normalem]{ulem}
\usepackage{fancyvrb}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{marginnote}

\renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1}


\renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize}

\def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif}

  \pagestyle{fancy}

\usepackage[pdftitle={Do Employee Engagement Practices Affect Job Performance: A Study of Telecommunication Companies in Jordan Do Employee Engagement Practices Affect Job Performance: A Study of Telecommunication Companies in Jordan},
 pdfauthor={}]{hyperref}
\hyperbaseurl{}

	 \paperwidth210mm
	 \paperheight297mm
              
\def\@pnumwidth{1.55em}
\def\@tocrmarg {2.55em}
\def\@dotsep{4.5}
\setcounter{tocdepth}{3}
\clubpenalty=8000
\emergencystretch 3em
\hbadness=4000
\hyphenpenalty=400
\pretolerance=750
\tolerance=2000
\vbadness=4000
\widowpenalty=10000

\renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}}
\renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}%
     {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\Large}}
\renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}%
     {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\large}}
\renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}%
     {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}%
     {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize}}
\renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}%
     {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}%
     {-1em}%
     {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}}


\def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt}
 \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup
 \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth 
 \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth 
 \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par
 \endgroup}
\def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}}
\def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}}
\def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}}
\def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}}
\@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{}
\@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{}
\newif\if@mainmatter 
\@mainmattertrue
\def\chaptername{Chapter}
\def\frontmatter{%
  \pagenumbering{roman}
  \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\roman{section}}
  \def\@chapapp{}%
}
\def\mainmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter}
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \pagenumbering{arabic}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6}
  \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}%
  \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}}
  \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section}
  \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}}
}
\def\backmatter{%
  \cleardoublepage
  \setcounter{chapter}{0}
  \setcounter{section}{0}
  \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2}
  \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}%
  \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter}
  \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}}
  \appendix
}
\newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{%
   \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}%
       {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}%
        \leftmargin\labelwidth
        \advance\leftmargin\labelsep
        \@openbib@code
        \usecounter{enumiv}%
        \let\p@enumiv\@empty
        \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}%
	}%
  \sloppy
  \clubpenalty4000
  \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty
  \widowpenalty4000%
  \sfcode`\.\@m}%
  {\def\@noitemerr
    {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}%
    \endlist}

\def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}}
\parskip0pt
\parindent1em
\def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}}
\newenvironment{reflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{sansreflist}{%
  \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{}
  {%
   \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}%
   \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}%
   \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}%
   \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}%
  }
  {\end{list}\end{raggedright}}
\newenvironment{specHead}[2]%
 {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}%
  \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}%

  \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}%
  \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}%
  }{}
      \def\TheFullDate{2018-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2018)}
\def\TheID{\makeatother }
\def\TheDate{2018-01-15}
\title{Do Employee Engagement Practices Affect Job Performance: A Study of Telecommunication Companies in Jordan Do Employee Engagement Practices Affect Job Performance: A Study of Telecommunication Companies in Jordan}
\author{}\makeatletter 
\makeatletter
\newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{%
  \clearpage
    \if@twoside
    \ifodd\c@page
      \hbox{}\newpage
      \if@twocolumn
        \hbox{}\newpage
      \fi
    \fi
  \fi
}
\makeatother
\makeatletter
\thispagestyle{empty}
\markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author}
\renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@
\belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip
\abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@
\belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@
\def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini
               \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@
               \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@
               \itemsep 1pt}
}
\makeatother
\fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm}
\fancyhf{} 
\setlength{\headheight}{14pt}
\fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} 
\fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} 
\fancyfoot[RO]{}
\fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID}
\fancyfoot[LE]{}
\fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage}
\fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID}
\hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true}
\fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}}

\date{}
\usepackage{authblk}

\providecommand{\keywords}[1]
{
\footnotesize
  \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1
}

\usepackage{graphicx,xcolor}
\definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81}
\definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9}
\definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70}
\definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} 

\renewenvironment{abstract}{%
   \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
   \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space}
}{%   
   \vskip8pt
   \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}}
   \vskip16pt
}

\usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos}

\makeatother 
      \usepackage{lineno}
      \linenumbers
      
\begin{document}

             \author[1]{Reham Zuhier Qasim  Almomani}

\renewcommand\Authands{ and }

\date{\small \em Received: 11 December 2017 Accepted: 2 January 2018 Published: 15 January 2018}

\maketitle


\begin{abstract}
        


This study aims at investigating the impact of employee engagement practices on job performance of telecommunication companies in Jordan. The population of the study consists of the employees working at the centers of telecommunication companies in Jordan counted (468). A convenience sample estimated (300) employees. A questionnaire was used as a major tool for data collection adopted from the previous studies, to answer the study questions, and test the hypotheses SPSS was used.The study finding showed that employee engagement practices have a statistically significant effect on Job Performance of telecommunication companies in Jordan. Based on the results, the researcher proposes several recommendations to managers and decision makers of the telecommunication companies in Jordan.

\end{abstract}


\keywords{employee engagement, job performance, telecommunication companies, jordan.}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark}
\end{textblock*}

\begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) 
\textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}}
\end{textblock*}


\let\tabcellsep& 	 	 		 
\section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par
he contemporary organizational environment represented by rapid changes and developments in the world, the increasing demands of customers, the change in the supervisory process, the growing sense of the importance of teamwork and many other variables contributed changing the work from being defined by a clear job description to a more comprehensive concept based on exceeding the requirements of job description, and dedication of the working individual to all his abilities in order to work, and cooperate with the rest of the staff and adapt effectively to changes in the organizational environment.\par
In light of the efforts of organizations of different types and sizes, and the sector in which they work to improve their organizational outputs, they are constantly seeking to identify the various practices that would improve these outputs, especially the practices related to their employees. Among the concepts that have had a positive impact since the early 1990s in improving organizational outcomes is the concept of employee engagement, which concerns the desire of employees for functional excellence and the implementation of work tasks as active members of the Organization seeking to help the Organization and move it forward to success by providing them with the best \hyperref[b31]{(Ott, 2007)}.\par
The concept of employee Engagement was first introduced in the Kahn study  {\ref (1990)}, which refers to the level of employees' use of their various physical, cognitive and emotional resources to accomplish their tasks. The employee Engagement status of employees is based on the fulfillment of preconditions that include, first, their sense of psychological security in the presence of effective personal resources that can be devoted to achieving the desired performance, and secondly their sense of the meaning and value of their work. In the view of some researchers, the concept of employee Engagement is a comprehensive concept of the intended use of the individual in enhancing performance. Therefore, all the psychological concepts that connect Employees to their work constitute part of the employee engagement. Examples of these concepts include Recruitment, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior.\par
Consistent with the different employees regarding abilities, physical, cognitive and cognitive skills, psychological structures, needs, desires, ideas and values, the classification of workers according to the degree of employee Engagement into three categories: the first category of employees with a high degree of employee engagement. The second category includes workers who have little employee engagement, and finally, the third category includes workers who have not yet achieved the requirements of employee engagement. The first category refers to workers who struggle to carry out their business functions efficiently and distinctly as they attempt to assist the organization in achieving its organizational objectives. The second category of employees is limited to carrying out the tasks entrusted to him within the context of job descriptions, regardless of the organizational objectives. Workers in category II are those who do what they are asked to do. The third category of workers is more dangerous to the organization as they do not comply with the minimum functional requirements and thus perform a negative role towards performance \hyperref[b16]{(Harter et al., 2002)}.\par
Given the importance of employee Engagement for employees and the organization alike, this concept has received more attention from organizations and researchers. Several studies have shown that there are some positive effects of employee engagement, including happiness, satisfaction and self-esteem, customer satisfaction \hyperref[b16]{(Harter et al., 2002)}, staff performance \hyperref[b34]{(Rich et al., 2010)} and organizational performance \hyperref[b30]{(Otieno et al., 2015)}, as employee Engagement consists of three concepts, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment and the desire to do more beyond the job description \hyperref[b38]{(Schaufeli, 2013)}. Al-Hassani (2013) summarized the positive effects of employee engagement gain at the organizational level by improving organizational performance, improving the productivity of working personnel, retaining employees, customer loyalty, and contributing to the successful implementation of organizational change. On the level of working individuals, employee engagement improves the psychological state of employees and generates good feelings among employees towards the organization and management represented by admiration, trust, and respect. In spite of the existence of some previous studies that dealt with the subject of employee Engagement and its relationship to other variables, these studies are few, the current study attempts to fill this gap, by identifying the impact of employee engagement and its dimensions (physical Engagement, cognitive Engagement, and emotional Engagement) on Job Performance of telecommunication companies in Jordan. 
\section[{II.}]{II.} 
\section[{Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development}]{Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Development}\par
Organizations face many challenges at the external and internal levels. Among the most important challenges at the internal level are those of staff, primarily low levels of job satisfaction, low level of job performance and increased job turn over, placing external burdens on the organization, such as customer dissatisfaction, financial burdens and costs.\par
As a result of studies on motivation, empowerment, organizational citizenship, leadership, culture, work teams, commitment, job satisfaction, motivation, and their relationship to other management concepts, the researchers concluded a new concept that has an impact on job performance, which is employee engagement \hyperref[b33]{(Ramlall et al., 2004)}. It is intended to harness the individual to his full physical, a cognitive and emotional potential for the execution of functional tasks \hyperref[b18]{(Kahn, 1990;}\hyperref[b21]{Kular et al., 2008)}. a) Employee Engagement concept \hyperref[b18]{Kahn (1990)} defined employee engagement as the link that a staff member combines in a job role. This definition has been expanded by other researchers such as \hyperref[b31]{Ott (2007)} to include the employee's commitment and passion for excellence in his or her functional roles as an active member of the organization. After further research by institutions such as the American Foundation for Development and Training, the Institutional Leadership Board, Gallup Consulting and others, the concept of Employee Engagement gain has evolved to include satisfaction, motivation, active participation and organizational commitment  {\ref (Lockwood, 2007)}.\par
Many researchers have adopted Ott's (2007) definition of employee engagement, including Anitha (2014), who has shown that employee engagement leads to an employee's understanding of his responsibility, and the role he has to play to achieve organizational goals, and that employee engagement is not limited to employee excellence Career, but beyond the emotional bond between the employee and his job. \hyperref[b35]{Robinson et al. (2004)} defined it as the employee's positive attitude towards the organization and its values, and it represents an advanced degree of organizational commitment. \hyperref[b21]{Kular et al. (2008)} refer to the employee engagement as the employee's physical, cognitive and emotional expression in the performance of the job role. The physical aspect refers to the physical effort of the employee to carry out the functional activities. The cognitive aspect relates to the employee's beliefs towards the organization, managers and circumstances. Finally, the emotional aspect describes the employee's sense of these factors and whether they are positive or negative attitudes towards the organization and its managers.\par
Schaufeli (2013) stated that employee engagement is the outcome of three variables: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and the extra effort that an employee makes in the organization's interests. This is not to say that employee engagement is the same as job satisfaction, organizational commitment or additional effort, but rather the sum of the results for each of these variables. \hyperref[b34]{Rich et al. (2010)} is another doctrine in the definition of that employee engagement by focusing on three concepts related to psychology, the first is Job involvement, which indicates the degree of interest of the employee in his work as part of his life, so the individual immersed in his work even outside the working hours to provide what can be described as active participation in the job he performs. The potential impact of this concept can therefore be seen in the level of performance of the staff and thus in the use of predictability of the level of job performance.\par
The second concept mentioned by Rich et al. (2012) is the job satisfaction, which is an emotional response by the employee in line with the definition of job satisfaction as a positive emotional state resulting from the employee's evaluation of the job. Finally, the third concept is about intrinsic motivation emanating from within the employee that describes the desire to do more to accomplish the tasks. In light of this, the researchers see that employee engagement is the outcome of the output of the previous concepts represented by positive participation and selfmotivation.\par
Thus, career employee engagement means that the employee directs all his physical, cognitive and emotional energies towards the performance of his work. The employee does not reach the state of employee engagement unless he has a high degree of readiness for work supported by physical and selfefficacy abilities while avoiding the negative impact of external factors. If the employee feels secure in terms of the relationship of mutual trust between him and his coworkers, supervisors and managers, and if he is consistent with the prevailing customs in the organization, in addition to feeling the value of the work he performs, which appear through the tasks he has accomplished, and the extent of harmony of values and personal goals with values and the organization's objectives. 
\section[{b) Employee Engagement models}]{b) Employee Engagement models}\par
The dimensions of employee engagement can be identified by the \hyperref[b18]{Kahn (1990}) model of Job engagement, which focuses on three dimensions labor value, security, and readiness \hyperref[b40]{(Shafer, 2010)}. i. Value of Work: \hyperref[b18]{Kahn (1990)} defined the value of work through the employee's sense that the work he performed was a positive contribution by the employee towards the organization. The factors affecting the employee's perception of the value of work are three aspects: completed work assignments, perceived value of the employee towards his/her job, and the extent to which his or her personal objectives are consistent with organizational objectives.\par
ii. Security: Refers to the degree to which the employee shows his feelings and express his views without fear of any negative consequences. Security is influenced by factors such as trust between the employee and the rest of the staff and the supervisor, as well as the managerial style that affects the degree of professional involvement through the employee's impression of the manager's confidence and the perceived ability of the employee to the manager. Finally, organizational habits affect employee engagement regarding encouraging employees to do more.\par
iii. Readiness: It expresses the employee's sense that he has the physical, emotional and psychological abilities that he can invest in fulfilling his job role. He described three factors affecting the degree of readiness of the employee, the employee's physical and emotional abilities, and self-efficacy, as well as external factors such as family life. Thus, the more secure the employee is, the greater the level of his / her engagement.\par
The study of \hyperref[b25]{May et al. (2004)}, is one of the studies that examined employee engagement using the Khan (1990) model (work, security, and Readiness). The study found that the value of work is the most influential component in the employee engagement, followed by security, and finally, the degree of readiness of the employee physically and emotionally. Also the study found that there is an effect of the manager on the employee's sense of security compared to other influences. The study also indicated that the physical and emotional abilities of the employee have a significant impact on the employee's readiness. The researchers demonstrated that the value of the work value could be measured by job enrichment and appropriateness of the role. The security variable can be measured through relationships with coworkers and supervisors, and compatibility with work habits. On the other hand, the employee's degree of readiness can be measured through physical abilities and participation in activities outside the organization that are concerned about the employee's role in the organization.\par
Another model of employee engagement is the Maslach et al. (  {\ref 2001}), which identified six factors that lead to Employee engagement: labor pressure, control, incentives and recognition, community and social support, as well as justice and perceived values. What distinguishes the second model from the first model is that the latter takes into account more variables that represent incentives or obstacles to Employee engagement. In a study by  {\ref Rich et al. (2012)}, which was applied to a sample of 245 employees and supervisors of the fire department, the study used three dimensions to measure the employee engagement is physical, cognitive and emotional. The study also used two functions to assess performance: job performance and organizational citizenship behavior. \hyperref[b1]{Ahmad (2015)} reported that most of the studies on employee engagement have used the scale developed by \hyperref[b34]{Rich et al. (2010)}, which was adopted in its development on the Khan (1990) model. The scale includes three dimensions of physical engagement, cognitive engagement, and emotional engagement, the same dimensions used by the researcher in the measurement of employee engagement. 
\section[{c) Employee Engagement dimensions}]{c) Employee Engagement dimensions}\par
This study dealt with Employee Engagement to represent three dimensions: physical Engagement, cognitive Engagement, and emotional Engagement, and these dimensions will be reflected in some detail.\par
Physical Engagement: Al-Abidi (2012) defines physical engagement as directing the individual to his or her physical energies towards performing his or her tasks. \hyperref[b21]{Kular et al. (2008)} defined physical engagement as the energy of the individual working to carry out his work. Al-Magribi (2004) defines physical engagement as the employee sought to work to make the appropriate effort to work more efficiently and greater productivity. Knight (2011) described physical engagement as the employee's functional state associated with the amount 
\section[{Global Journal of Management and Business Research}]{Global Journal of Management and Business Research}\par
Volume XVIII Issue XII Version I Year ( ) A of physical energy he/she performs in performing tasks. \hyperref[b36]{Rosli (2015)}, on the other hand, expressed physical engagement with the term enthusiasm, which is meant to focus efforts towards work, to show high levels of energy at work, and to insist on carrying out tasks and challenges. Al-Abidi (2012) used the scale developed by \hyperref[b34]{Rich et al. (2010)} to measure organizational performance. Among the paragraphs used to measure physical engagement are: I do my best in my job, devote a lot of my physical energy to my job, and do my best to perform my job.\par
Cognitive Engagement: Sakovska (2013) defined cognitive engagement through the level of awareness of employees about the conditions of the organization and management, and the work they do. \hyperref[b30]{Otieno et al. (2015)} have embarked on the definition of cognitive engagement from the theory of human capital, considering that countries that have a lot of labor in exchange for lack of physical capital have to focus on transforming human resources into effective human capital by providing them with the knowledge that qualifies them to do business with high efficiency. One way to do this is to promote cognitive engagement, which refers to directing the knowledge capacities of the staff member towards the implementation of work assignments. \hyperref[b26]{Miller (2008)} identified cognitive engagement as beliefs stemming from the employee's knowledge of the nature of what is going on in the organization in many aspects such as the leadership style followed and organizational culture of the organization. Among the paragraphs used in the measurement of cognitive engagement is what Al-Abidi (2012) mentioned, such as the employee's mental focus on functional tasks, and the employee's dedication to his attention during the performance of the job. Regarding relation to the level of performance of the workers, the researchers found that the most important variables affecting employee engagement is the development of employees. The results of the study showed that the development of employees affects the employee engagement, which in turn affects the level of performance.\par
Emotional Engagement: Emotional engagement is defined as the positive attitudes of workers and their sense of the organization and its values  {\ref (Sakovska, 2012)}. Other researchers emphasized this definition as \hyperref[b26]{Miller (2008)} described the emotional engagement or the employee's feelings towards colleagues, managers and the organization itself. Depending on the nature of these feelings, employee engagement either describes the employee's positive feelings or negative feelings toward peers, managers, and organization \hyperref[b20]{(Knight, 2011)}. Al-Abidi (2012) mentioned some of the paragraphs in which measure emotional engagement, including the employee's enthusiasm for work, the employee's sense of vitality while performing the job duties, the employee's sense of pride about his job, the positive feelings of the employee and the joy of the job. 
\section[{d) Job performance concept}]{d) Job performance concept}\par
The concept of job performance expresses the net effect of an individual's efforts that begin with capacities and a perception of the role or tasks that indicate the degree to which the tasks of the individual are accomplished (Sultan, 2004). Farooqui \& Nagendra (2014) sees job performance as critical to the organization's performance. For this reason, a person's ability to speak and communicate information can be an indicator of his or her performance at work because those who have this skill will be positively reflected in the results of their work, and the relationship with their direct manager will be strengthened. According to Andreia (2012), performance is one of the most important functional outcomes, and has been defined as the aggregate value of activities in which the employee participates directly and individually, positively or negatively in achieving organizational objectives Job performance is generally defined as the degree to which an employee assists the organization in achieving its organizational objectives, and is also called employee performance. Job performance expresses the financial and non-financial outputs of staff directly related to the organization's organizational performance \hyperref[b7]{(Anitha, 2014)}. \hyperref[b22]{Levey (2001)} defines job performance as "the result of three factors: skill, effort, and the nature of working conditions. Skills include the knowledge, abilities and competencies that an individual brings to the organization. The effort includes the degree of motivation of the employee to accomplish his work, the nature of work conditions. Abu Sharkh (2010) indicates that job performance reflects the degree to which the individual functions are fulfilled and reflect how the individual fulfills the job requirements. \hyperref[b43]{Zahra (2015)} defined Job performance as the outcome of an individual's performance while performing his functions The performance appraisal process starts at the beginning the collection of data that can be analyzed and the results obtained is used to judge the behavior or performance of the employee, whether high, medium or low, in accordance with the benchmarking criteria used to assess the performance level, and accordingly the definition of performance relates primarily to the behavior of the individual during the implementation of the tasks required of him, in addition to the level of efficiency (scientific and practical) that he owns and enable him to implement tasks at best \hyperref[b39]{Severin (1999)} defines job performance as the individual's duties, and responsibilities in the exercise of his or her work, by the rate at which he or she is required to perform. \hyperref[b11]{Campbell and Wise (1990)} noted that job performance consists of behaviors that can be observed in individuals in their jobs and are relevant to the achievement of the organization goals. Al-Khalifa  {\ref (2007)} defines it as "a coordinated effort to carry out tasks that involve converting inputs to outputs of a quality consistent with the skills, abilities and experience of the staff, with the help of supporting factors and the appropriate working environment to undertake this effort accurately, shorter and less costly." 
\section[{e) Job performance measurement}]{e) Job performance measurement}\par
Many researchers agree that Job performance is a multidimensional variable. In general, Job performance consists of two dimensions: task performance and contextual performance \hyperref[b10]{(Borman \& Motowidlo, 1993;}\hyperref[b27]{Motowidlo \& Schmit, 1999)}, where promotions and rewards decisions are based on the relative values set by the manager on behaviors related to task performance and contextual performance reflected by the subordinate.\par
i. Task performance: Task performance is defined as the functional behaviors associated with key activities in the organization such as the production of goods, the providing of services and sales \hyperref[b9]{(Befort and Hattrup, 2003)} It is concluded from the above that researchers and organizations need to focus on the study of Job engagement, and its components and the degree of its impact on other variables. The recognition of the degree of employee engagement leads to the judgment of the employees' perceptions of the labor relations. Thus, the promoting of employee engagement plays an important role in improving productivity, product quality, and organizational environment, which is reflected in the achievement of organizational objectives. \hyperref[b36]{Rosli (2015)} study emphasized the positive benefits of employee engagement in various types of organizational outputs such as organizational performance, job satisfaction, organizational commitment, employee performance, employee productivity, organizational loyalty, employee loyalty and staying in the organization.\par
Several previous studies have confirmed a positive relationship between employee engagement and functional performance. Among these studies Ott (2007) study, which shows that organizations with highly employee engagement have outperformed organizations that do not have such staff, which also show that organizations with highly employee engagement have achieved higher levels of customer satisfaction, higher employee productivity, and higher profitability. In order to identify what is meant by the high degree of employment, \hyperref[b13]{Fleming and Asplund (2007)} reported that the degree of employee engagement is increasing with the increasing period in which the individual remains employed by the organization with the continued desire not to leave the job. The research conducted by \hyperref[b41]{Srivastava \& Bhatnagar (2008)} investigates that talent management and its relationship to levels of Job engagement, that employee engagement is an indicator of retention and productivity.\par
Maden study (2015) confirmed a positive correlation between Employee Engagement and employee innovation. Hewitt \& Associates (2004), through their five-year study of global companies, found that the higher levels of employee engagement, the higher the performance indicators will be. Al-Domi (2011) notes that many organizations have an active and vibrant culture, but relatively few make their overall goals and visions live and compete through their employees, and large organizations promote a love of work that encourages individuals to deliver the best performance.\par
Kahn's (1990) model of employee engagement is very important for the present study. This model describes employee engagement through the motivation principle that motivates the employee to employ all his physical, cognitive and emotional energy to perform the required functions. Thus, the consideration of employee engagement through this angle not only shows a positive relationship between employee engagement and job performance, but also shows that employee engagement is the most closely related variable of job performance, the most appropriate variable for predicting variation in job performance. It should be noted that the interest of researchers was mainly focused on the study of the relationship between each dimension of employee engagement and job performance, rather than the overall effect of all employee engagement components in job performance \hyperref[b34]{(Rich et al., 2010)}.\par
Rich et al. (  {\ref 2010}) noted that although Khan (1990) did not explicitly mention a positive relationship between employee engagement and job performance, his model included the basis for such a relationship, since directing the employee to his physical, cognitive and emotional capacities to perform the functional tasks necessarily improves his productivity. The outcome of  {\ref Rich et al. (2012)} showed a positive effect of employee engagement on career performance. Based on these findings the following hypothesis is suggested: 
\section[{There is a statistically significant positive effect of employee engagement (Physical, Cognitive and Emotional engagement) on job performance of telecommunication companies in Jordan.}]{There is a statistically significant positive effect of employee engagement (Physical, Cognitive and Emotional engagement) on job performance of telecommunication companies in Jordan.}\par
More specifically: H1a. Physical engagement directly influences job performance of telecommunication companies in Jordan. 
\section[{H1b. Cognitive engagement directly influences job performance of telecommunication companies in Jordan.}]{H1b. Cognitive engagement directly influences job performance of telecommunication companies in Jordan.}\par
H1c. Emotional engagement directly influences job performance of telecommunication companies in Jordan. 
\section[{III.}]{III.} 
\section[{Research Framework}]{Research Framework}\par
Based on study hypothesis, the following theoretical framework, shown in Figure 1. As can be seen from the framework, the study investigates the impact of employee engagement on job performance of the telecommunication companies in Jordan, where employee engagement are the independent variable and are positively related to job performance as the dependent variable.  
\section[{Methodology}]{Methodology}\par
The methodology section of the current research depicts the sample of the study, the measurements, the statistical analysis to test the validity and reliability of the study tool and to test the study hypotheses employed to test the relationship between study constructs (employee engagement and job performance). 
\section[{a) Data collection}]{a) Data collection}\par
Data are collected using a questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into three sections: Section A consisted of a list of questions intended to probe the demographic variables of the respondents. Section B contained questions aimed at gauging the respondents' evaluation of employee engagement of the telecommunication companies in Jordan adopted from previous studies, and which could possibly influence job performance, using a five-point Likert scale. The following practices were focused on; Physical engagement (5 statements), Cognitive engagement (4 statements), and Emotional engagement (6 statements) Section C is also adopted from previous studies, contained questions aimed at evaluating the level of job performance were focused on these dimensions; Altruism (7 statements), Consciousness and Conscience (7 statements), and Task performance (6 statements). 
\section[{b) Study tool}]{b) Study tool}\par
The constructs in this study were developed by using measurement scales adopted from prior studies. Modifications were made to the scale to fit the purpose of the study. All constructs were measured using fivepoint Likert scales with anchors strongly disagree (= 1) and strongly agree (= 5). All items were positively worded. Employee Engagement consist of Physical engagement, Cognitive engagement, and Emotional engagement, were adapted from previous studies \hyperref[b18]{(Kahn, 1990)}. Job performance dimensions consist of Altruism, Consciousness and Conscience, and Task performance, the most widely used measure of job performance adapted from Job Performance Scale \hyperref[b14]{(Goodman \& Svyantek, 1999)}. 
\section[{c) Sample}]{c) Sample}\par
The study population consisted of all of the Employees of the telecommunication companies in Jordan counted 468 employees, a convenience sample estimated (300) was selected; the researcher distributed the questionnaires to the study sample. After reviewing the questionnaires show that there are (263) extremely fit for statistical analysis.  
\section[{d) Reliability and validity of the survey instrument}]{d) Reliability and validity of the survey instrument}\par
The survey instrument with 38 items was developed based on two variables Employee Engagement as independent variables with three dimensions; Physical engagement (PE1-PE5), Cognitive engagement (CE6-OE9), and Emotional engagement (EE10-EE15). Job performance as dependent variables with three dimensions: Altruism (AL16-AL22), Consciousness and Conscience(CC23-CC29), and Task performance(TP30-TP39).The instrument was evaluated for reliability and validity. Reliability refers to the instrument's ability to provide consistent results in repeated uses  {\ref (Gatewood \& Field, 1990)}. Validity refers to the degree to which the instrument measures the concept the researcher wants to measure \hyperref[b8]{(Bagozzi \& Phillips, 1982)}. Factor analysis and reliability analysis were used in order to determine the data reliability for the employee engagement, and job performance dimensions. A within factor, factor analysis was performed to assess convergent validity. The results of the factor analysis and reliability tests are presented in Table \hyperref[b1]{(2)} and Table \hyperref[b2]{(3)}. All individual loadings were above the minimum of 0.5 recommended by \hyperref[b15]{Hair et al. (1998)}. For exploratory research, a Chronbach ? greater than 0.70 is generally considerate reliable \hyperref[b29]{(Nunnally, 1978)}. Chronbach ? statistics for the study contracts are shown in Table \hyperref[b1]{(2)} and Table \hyperref[b2]{(3)}. Thus it can be concluded that the measures used in this study are valid and reliable. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin has been used as Pre-analysis testing for the suitability of the entire sample for factor analysis as recommended by \hyperref[b12]{Comrey (1978)}, the value of The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure was used to assess the suitability of the sample for each unifactorial determination. The KMO values found (see Table \hyperref[tab_2]{2}, and 3) are generally considered acceptable \hyperref[b19]{(Kim and Mueller, 1978)}. All factors in each unifactorial test accounted for more than 52.7 per cent of the variance of the respective variable sets. This suggests that only a small amount of the total variance for each group of variables is associated with causes other than the factor itself. 
\section[{e) Descriptive statistics analysis}]{e) Descriptive statistics analysis}\par
Table \hyperref[b3]{(4)} indicates that the employees of the telecommunication companies in Jordan evaluate cognitive engagement (with the highest mean scores, i.e. M = 3.91, SD=0.54) to be the most dominant of employee engagement and evident to a considerable extent, followed by Physical engagement (M= 3.77, SD=0.64), and emotional engagement (M = 3.59, SD=0.57). With regard to job performance, employees of the telecommunication companies in Jordan evaluate Task performance (with the highest mean scores, i.e. M = 3.76, SD=0.58) to be the most dominant job performance dimensions within their organization and evident to a considerable extent, followed by Consciousness and Conscience (M= 3.69, SD=0.57), and Altruism (with the lowest mean scores M = 3.37, SD=0.62).  
\section[{Test of Hypothesis}]{Test of Hypothesis}\par
Multiple regression analysis was employed to test the hypotheses. It is a useful technique that can be used to analyze the relationship between a single dependent variable and several independent variables \hyperref[b15]{(Hair et al., 1998)}. In this model, job performance acts as the dependent variable and employee engagement, as the independent variables. From the result as shown in Table \hyperref[b4]{(5)}, the regression model was statistically significant (F = 63.526; R2 =.36; P =.000). The R2 is 0.36, which means that 36 per cent of the variation in job The proposed model was adequate as the F-statistic = 63.526 were significant at the 5\% level (p < 0.05). This indicates that the overall model was reasonable fit and there was a statistically significant association between employee engagement and job performance.\par
Table \hyperref[b4]{(5)} also shows that Physical engagement (ß =0.22, p< 0.05), Cognitive engagement (ß =0.15;p<0,05), had a significant and positive effect on job performance. Emotional engagement (ß =0.09, p< 0.05) had a insignificant effect on job performance. This provides evidence to support H1a, and H1b. Based on the ß values Physical engagement has the highest impact on job performance followed by Cognitive engagement.  
\section[{Discussion}]{Discussion}\par
-Employees of the telecommunication companies in Jordan view their jobs as one of the most fundamental values of their lives. This finding can also be explained by the fact that employees believe that interest in their jobs contributes to their achievement. With regard to physical engagement it is noted that senior management providing training courses that enable staff to enhance the physical skills of staff to learn about the modern methods of evaluation, how to use them or because of the reluctance of those who prepare, use for some of these methods of long time, and great effort in the process of preparation, and implementation. With regard to emotional engagement it is noted that the management of the telecommunication companies in Jordan paying efforts to develop a sense of belonging among employees, their association with their goals and their pursuit of membership. The researcher attributes this result to the readiness of the management of the telecommunication companies in Jordan to provide additional services to their employees based on the theory of social exchange, which assume that staff members who feel a high level of social and psychological support during their work are more loyal. Finally, With regard to cognitive engagement it is noted that the management of the telecommunication companies in Jordan attract and select employees who possess many characteristics such as knowledge, skills and previous experiences of a high level of competence, and also prepares training programs and workshops to raise the level of competence of employees to develop their careers, its intellectual capital in order to keep pace with the latest technologies in this field. The management of the telecommunication companies in Jordan has a great deal of interest in the human element, and seeks to have the human element capable of carrying out the work with great flexibility to meet the various changes that it may face through its characteristics of creativity in various fields of work and Innovation and continuous improvement.\par
-With regard to job performance it is noted that the employees need to carry out tasks that do not exceed their official role, as the administration's discouragement of employees to accomplish additional tasks as well as the absence of a strong incentive system related to the performance of these tasks, To move towards informal tasks has a negative impact on altruism, and the reason why staff may not wish to perform further is that there is little appreciation of the informal role of the individual. In addition the researcher believes that there is a high level of sense of organizational citizenship among the staff as well as the reason that the management of the telecommunication companies in Jordan determines each of its members an official role includes the behaviors required of him in his job, which positively affects the awareness and conscience of these individuals.\par
The researcher explains the result of task performance is the work performance activities, which contribute mainly to the technical organization essence, which makes it of high importance to the staff and the organization.\par
-There is a statistically significant effect of the employee engagement on the job performance of the telecommunication companies in Jordan. The researcher attributed this finding to the high level of employee engagement in general indicates the focus of the organization on human relations. In order to raise their morale, which in turn leads to   {\ref 2012}), which showed that taking the mental health of the workers along with the elements of employee engagement improves the job performance, and the study of \hyperref[b7]{Anitha (2014)}, which showed a statistically significant effect of the variable employee engagement on the job performance of employees in these companies.\par
-The study results showed that there is a statistically significant effect of the physical engagement on the job performance of the telecommunication companies in Jordan. This means that performance in a given position can be seen as a product of the interrelationship, which makes physical engagement a clear influence on the enhancement of this performance. This result can be justified by the fact that the effort exerted by individuals in the organization directly affects motivation and ethics and job commitment. Thus contributing to the promotion of job performance by creating monologues suitable environment work contribute to raising the level of motivation of the individual thereby improving his ability to accomplish business in the right way.\par
-The study results showed that there is a significant statistical effect of the emotional engagement on the job performance of the telecommunication companies in Jordan. The researcher attributed this finding to the high level of emotional engagement indicates the existence of emotional bond between the employee and his / her job, thus ensure that the employee is fully concerned with the completion of his / her work. He views this work as an opportunity to achieve the best, as well as the employee's desire to perform the tasks assigned to him / her to the fullest, This result can also be explained by the fact that performance is measured not only by the performance of duties but also by measuring the employee's commitment to his / her behavior at work. Therefore, emotional engagement contributes to the employee's increased commitment to public behavior and ethics during his / Contributes to improving its performance.\par
-The study results showed that there is a statistically significant effect of the cognitive engagement on the job performance of the telecommunication companies in Jordan. The researcher attributes this result to cognitive engagement related to the general knowledge as the beliefs of the employee towards the organization, managers and working conditions, which indicate that they are quick change during the employee's period of work, and depending on the variables surrounding it, and thus has a limited and relatively unstable impact on the job performance.\par
VII. 
\section[{Recommendations}]{Recommendations}\par
Through the results of the study, the researcher provides a set of proposals for the telecommunication companies in Jordan, and the researcher aims behind these recommendations to contribute to improving the performance of the job, and these proposals:\par
1. Improve and develop the leadership styles of the managers and follow the democratic leadership styles that take into account the levels and needs of the workers, their abilities, and scientific qualifications in order to increase the employee Engagement which is reflected positively on improving their performance. 2. Improve and develop the system of incentives and promotions in terms of material and moral, and take into account the competencies and abilities of professional and development and innovative workers, and encourage the creators to continue creative work that will help to develop their performance. 3. Work to improve the professional growth of employees through management, and increase training courses and duration during service. 4. Provide a suitable organizational and material environment for the employees to perform their work through improving the work environment and discipline, and establishing balanced relationships with the working environment to contribute to the conservation processes of the system through cooperation and participation in the decisions. 5. Improve the system of promotions, appointments, and contracts in the organization in order to make more efforts and work by the workers to obtain a more functional area, and this is linked to increased effort and work by employees.  \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{1} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.11706586826347305\textwidth}P{0.36137724550898204\textwidth}P{0.1374251497005988\textwidth}P{0.2341317365269461\textwidth}}
Variable\tabcellsep \tabcellsep Frequency\tabcellsep \%\\
\tabcellsep less than 30\tabcellsep 69\tabcellsep 26.23\%\\
Age group\tabcellsep 30-less than 40 40-less than 50 50 years and\tabcellsep 126 41 27\tabcellsep 47.90\% 15.59\%\\
\tabcellsep more\tabcellsep \tabcellsep 10.28\%\\
Gender\tabcellsep Male Female\tabcellsep 147 116\tabcellsep 55.89\% 44.10\%\end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_1}Table 1 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{2} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.35231884057971014\textwidth}P{0.16753623188405797\textwidth}P{0.1798550724637681\textwidth}P{0.029565217391304348\textwidth}P{0.06405797101449276\textwidth}P{0.056666666666666664\textwidth}}
Construct and item\tabcellsep Loadings\tabcellsep Communalities\tabcellsep KMO\tabcellsep Variance\tabcellsep Reliability\\
Physical engagement (PE)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep .76\tabcellsep 61.325\tabcellsep 0.82\\
PE1\tabcellsep 0.62\tabcellsep 0.64\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
PE2\tabcellsep 0.59\tabcellsep 0.61\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
PE3\tabcellsep 0.58\tabcellsep 0.59\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
PE4\tabcellsep 0.66\tabcellsep 0.68\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
PE5\tabcellsep 0.54\tabcellsep 0.57\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Cognitive engagement (CE)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep .77\tabcellsep 62.349\tabcellsep 0.81\\
CE6\tabcellsep 0.59\tabcellsep 0.61\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
CE7\tabcellsep 0.62\tabcellsep 0.64\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
CE8\tabcellsep 0.66\tabcellsep 0.68\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
CE9\tabcellsep 0.57\tabcellsep 0.62\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Emotional engagement (EE)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep .78\tabcellsep 69.581\tabcellsep 0.84\\
EE10\tabcellsep 0.63\tabcellsep 0.65\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
EE11\tabcellsep 0.58\tabcellsep 0.61\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
EE12\tabcellsep 0.55\tabcellsep 0.58\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
EE13\tabcellsep 0.52\tabcellsep 0.54\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
EE14\tabcellsep 0.64\tabcellsep 0.68\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
EE15\tabcellsep 0.57\tabcellsep 0.60\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_2}Table 2 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{3} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.35324675324675325\textwidth}P{0.14718614718614717\textwidth}P{0.16558441558441558\textwidth}P{0.04047619047619047\textwidth}P{0.07359307359307359\textwidth}P{0.06991341991341991\textwidth}}
Construct and item\tabcellsep Loadings\tabcellsep Communalities\tabcellsep KMO\tabcellsep Variance\tabcellsep Reliability\\
Altruism (AL)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep .642\tabcellsep 57.364\tabcellsep 0.83\\
AL16\tabcellsep 0.59\tabcellsep 0.62\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
AL17\tabcellsep 0.61\tabcellsep 0.64\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
AL18\tabcellsep 0.63\tabcellsep 0.68\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
AL19\tabcellsep 0.58\tabcellsep 0.63\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
AL20\tabcellsep 0.57\tabcellsep 0.59\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
AL21\tabcellsep 0.52\tabcellsep 0.55\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
AL22\tabcellsep 0.62\tabcellsep 0.65\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
Consciousness and Conscience (CC)\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep .613\tabcellsep 65.367\tabcellsep 0.86\\
CC23\tabcellsep 0.56\tabcellsep 0.58\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_3}Table 3 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{4} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5666666666666667\textwidth}P{0.13076923076923078\textwidth}P{0.15256410256410255\textwidth}}
Dimension\tabcellsep Mean\tabcellsep Standard deviation\\
Employee engagement\tabcellsep 3.76\tabcellsep \\
Physical engagement\tabcellsep 3.77\tabcellsep 0.64\\
cognitive engagement\tabcellsep 3.91\tabcellsep 0.54\\
emotional engagement\tabcellsep 3.59\tabcellsep 0.57\\
Job performance\tabcellsep 3.61\tabcellsep \\
Altruism\tabcellsep 3.37\tabcellsep 0.62\\
Consciousness and Conscience\tabcellsep 3.69\tabcellsep 0.57\\
Task performance\tabcellsep 3.76\tabcellsep 0.58\\
V.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_4}Table 4 :}\end{figure}
 \begin{figure}[htbp]
\noindent\textbf{5} \par 
\begin{longtable}{P{0.5943089430894309\textwidth}P{0.04491869918699187\textwidth}P{0.04491869918699187\textwidth}P{0.041463414634146344\textwidth}P{0.0725609756097561\textwidth}P{0.051829268292682924\textwidth}}
\tabcellsep \tabcellsep T\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
\tabcellsep ß\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep Tolerance\tabcellsep VIF\\
Physical engagement\tabcellsep 0.22\tabcellsep 6.32\tabcellsep 0.00\tabcellsep 0.31\tabcellsep 3.21\\
cognitive engagement\tabcellsep 0.15\tabcellsep 4.03\tabcellsep 0.00\tabcellsep 0.45\tabcellsep 2.24\\
emotional engagement\tabcellsep 0.09\tabcellsep 1.98\tabcellsep 0.04\tabcellsep 0.51\tabcellsep 1.97\\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{Notes: R 2 =.36; Adj. R 2 =.356; Sig. F = 0.000; F-value = 63.526; dependent variable, job performance}\\
p < 0.05\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\
VI.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par
 
\caption{\label{tab_5}Table 5 :}\end{figure}
 			\footnote{© 2018 Global Journals} 			\footnote{Do Employee Engagement Practices Affect Job Performance: A Study of Telecommunication Companies in Jordan} 		 		\backmatter  			  				\begin{bibitemlist}{1}
\bibitem[Behavior and Alexandria]{b42}\label{b42} 	 		\textit{},  		 			Organizational Behavior 		,  		 			Alexandria 		.  		 		 			New University House 		 	 
\bibitem[Ramlall ()]{b33}\label{b33} 	 		‘A review of employee motivation theories and their implications for employee retention within organizations’.  		 			S Ramlall 		.  	 	 		\textit{The Journal of American Academy of Business}  		2004. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Miller ()]{b26}\label{b26} 	 		\textit{An Employee Engagement Assessment of XYZ Manufacturing Company},  		 			S Miller 		.  		2008.  		 			University of Wisconsin-Stout 		 	 	 (Master thesis) 
\bibitem[Harter et al. ()]{b16}\label{b16} 	 		‘Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis’.  		 			J Harter 		,  		 			F Schmidt 		,  		 			T Hayes 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Applied Psychology}  		2002. 87  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[com/content/27799/Investors-Take-Note-Engagement -Boosts-Earnings.aspx]{b32}\label{b32} 	 		\textit{com/content/27799/Investors-Take-Note-Engagement -Boosts-Earnings.aspx},  				 	 
\bibitem[Comrey ()]{b12}\label{b12} 	 		‘Common Methodological Problems in Factor Analytic Studies’.  		 			A L Comrey 		.  	 	 		\textit{J Consult Clin Psych}  		1978. 46 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Anitha ()]{b7}\label{b7} 	 		‘Determinants of employee engagement and their impact on employee performance’.  		 			J Anitha 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management}  		2014. 63  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Otieno et al. ()]{b30}\label{b30} 	 		‘Effect of employee engagement on organization performance in Kenya's horticultural sector’.  		 			B Otieno 		,  		 			E Waiganjo 		,  		 			A Waiganjo 		.  	 	 		\textit{International Journal of Business Administration}  		2015. 6  (2)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Knight ()]{b20}\label{b20} 	 		\textit{Employee Engagement A study of employee engagement at Topaz's South Dublin Region Service Stations},  		 			R Knight 		.  		2011.  		 			National College of Ireland 		 	 	 (A Master thesis) 
\bibitem[Kular et al. ()]{b21}\label{b21} 	 		‘Employee Engagement: A Literature Review’.  		 			S Kular 		,  		 			M Gatenby 		,  		 			C Rees 		,  		 			E Soane 		,  		 			K Truss 		.  	 	 		\textit{Working Paper Series}  		2008.  (19)  p. .  		 			Kingston University 		 	 
\bibitem[Abu Sharakh, Nader Hamid Abdul Razzaq (ed.) ()]{b0}\label{b0} 	 		\textit{Evaluation of the impact of incentives on the performance level of the Palestinian Telecommunications Company from the point of view of employees},  		Abu Sharakh, Nader Hamid Abdul Razzaq (ed.)  		2010. Gaza, Palestine: Master of Business Administration Unpublished.  		 			Al-Azhar University 		 	 
\bibitem[Borman and Motowidlo ()]{b10}\label{b10} 	 		‘Expanding the criterion domain to included elements of contextual performance’.  		 			W Borman 		,  		 			S Motowidlo 		.  	 	 		\textit{Personnel selection. Jossey-Bass Frontiers Series},  				 			N Schmitt,  			\& W C Borman 		 (ed.)  		 (San Francisco, CA)  		1993.  	 
\bibitem[Sakovska ()]{b37}\label{b37} 	 		\textit{Importance of employee engagement in business environment measuring the engagement level of administrative personnel in VUC Aarhus and detecting factors requiring improvement},  		 			M Sakovska 		.  		2013. Aarhus, Denmark.  		 			Masters Dissertation, Aarhus University 		 	 
\bibitem[Ott (2007)]{b31}\label{b31} 	 		\textit{Investors, take note: Engagement boosts earnings},  		 			B Ott 		.  		 \url{http://gmj.gallup}  		2007. Retrieved Oct. 10. 2015. Gallup Management Press.  	 
\bibitem[Maslach et al. ()]{b24}\label{b24} 	 		‘Job burnout’.  		 			C Maslach 		,  		 			W Schaufeli 		,  		 			M Leiter 		.  	 	 		\textit{Annual Review of Psychology}  		2001. 52 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Rich et al. ()]{b34}\label{b34} 	 		‘Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job performance’.  		 			B Rich 		,  		 			J Lepine 		,  		 			E Crawford 		.  	 	 		\textit{Academy of Management Journal}  		2010. 53  (3)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kim and Mueller ()]{b19}\label{b19} 	 		 			Jae-On Kim 		,  		 			Charles W Mueller 		.  		\textit{Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues},  				 (Sage, Beverly Hills, CA)  		1978.  	 
\bibitem[Maden ()]{b23}\label{b23} 	 		‘Linking high involvement human resource practices to employee proactivity’.  		 			C Maden 		.  	 	 		\textit{Personnel Review}  		2015. 44  (5)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Campbell ()]{b11}\label{b11} 	 		‘Modeling Job Performance in A Population of’.  		 			Wise Campbell 		.  	 	 		\textit{Jobs. Personal Psychology}  		1990.  (43)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Hair et al. ()]{b15}\label{b15} 	 		\textit{Multivariate Data Analysis},  		 			J F Hair 		,  		 			Anderson Jr 		,  		 			R E Tatham 		,  		 			R L Black 		,  		 			WC 		.  		1998. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall International.  	 	 (5th ed.) 
\bibitem[Nunnally ()]{b29}\label{b29} 	 		 			J C Nunnally 		.  		\textit{Psychometric theory},  				 (New York)  		1978. McGraw-Hill.  	 	 (2nd ed)) 
\bibitem[Al-Khalifa and Said ()]{b4}\label{b4} 	 		\textit{Organizational culture and its role in raising the level of performance. A survey of the officers of the College of Command and Staff of the Saudi Armed Forces},  		 			Ziad Al-Khalifa 		,  		 			Said 		.  		2007. Saudi Arabia.  		 			Naif Arab University for Security Sciences 		 	 	 (Master of Administrative Sciences, College of Graduate Studies) 
\bibitem[Al-Badi and Jayyad ()]{b2}\label{b2} 	 		‘Organizational Integrity: A Strategic Approach in the Process of Enhancing Employee engagement: An Empirical Study of a sample of Industrial Sector Companies in the Ministry of Industry and Minerals’.  		 			Ali Razaq Al-Badi 		,  		 			Jayyad 		.  	 	 		\textit{Non-Economic and Administrative Sciences}  		2012.  (24)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Motowidlo and Schmit (ed.) ()]{b27}\label{b27} 	 		\textit{Performance assessment in unique jobs},  		 			S J Motowidlo 		,  		 			M J Schmit 		.  		D. R. (ed.)  		1999.  	 
\bibitem[Severin ()]{b39}\label{b39} 	 		\textit{Performance Rating},  		 			Tankard Severin 		.  		1999. New York: Hastings House Publishers.  	 
\bibitem[Goodman and Svyantek ()]{b14}\label{b14} 	 		‘Personorganization fit and contextual performance: Do shared values matter’.  		 			S A Goodman 		,  		 			D J Svyantek 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Vocational Behavior}  		1999. 55 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Shafer ()]{b40}\label{b40} 	 		\textit{Professionalism development to promote employee engagement: A multi-case study. Doctorate Dissertation},  		 			S Shafer 		.  		2010.  		 			Clemson University 		 	 
\bibitem[Hassani and Kadhim ()]{b17}\label{b17} 	 		‘Psychological capital and its impact on employment’.  		 			Kamal Hassani 		,  		 			Kadhim 		.  	 	 		\textit{Al-Muthanna Journal of Administrative and Economic Sciences}  		2013. 3  (6)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Kahn ()]{b18}\label{b18} 	 		‘Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work’.  		 			W Kahn 		.  	 	 		\textit{Academy of Management Journal}  		1990. 33  (4)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Al-Magribi ()]{b5}\label{b5} 	 		‘Quality of work life and its impact on the development of engagement’.  		 			Al-Magribi 		.  	 	 		\textit{Zagazig University. Journal of Studies and Business Research}  		2004.  (2)  p. .  	 	 (Abdelhameed Abdel Fattah) 
\bibitem[Ahmad ()]{b1}\label{b1} 	 		\textit{Relationship between performance appraisal and employee engagement among administrative staff},  		 			R Ahmad 		.  		2015. Malaysia.  		 			Utara University 		 	 	 (A Master thesis) 
\bibitem[Bagozzi and Phillips ()]{b8}\label{b8} 	 		‘Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal’.  		 			R P Bagozzi 		,  		 			L W Phillips 		.  	 	 		\textit{Administrative Science Quarterly}  		1982. 27 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Levey ()]{b22}\label{b22} 	 		‘Sources of stress for residents and recommendations for programs to assist them’.  		 			R E Levey 		.  	 	 		\textit{Acad Med}  		2001.  (76)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Srivastava and Bhatnagar ()]{b41}\label{b41} 	 		\textit{Talent acquisition due diligence leading to high employee engagement: Case of Motorola India},  		 			Pallavi Srivastava 		,  		 			Jyotsna Bhatnagar 		.  		2008. MDB. 40 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Ilgen & E. D. Pulakos (ed.)]{b28}\label{b28} 	 		\textit{The changing nature of performance},  		Ilgen \& E. D. Pulakos (ed.)  		San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. p. .  	 
\bibitem[Robinson et al. ()]{b35}\label{b35} 	 		\textit{The Drivers of Employee Engagement},  		 			D Robinson 		,  		 			S Perryman 		,  		 			S Hayday 		.  		2004. Brighton. 408.  		 			Institute for Employment Studies 		 	 	 (Report) 
\bibitem[Andreia ()]{b6}\label{b6} 	 		‘The Perceived Leadership Style and Employee Performance . in Hotel Industry-a Dual Approach’.  		 			Andreia 		.  	 	 		\textit{Review of international Comparative Management}  		2012. 2  (13)  p. 299.  	 
\bibitem[May et al. ()]{b25}\label{b25} 	 		‘The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work’.  		 			D May 		,  		 			R Gilson 		,  		 			L Harter 		.  	 	 		\textit{Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology}  		2004. 77 p. .  	 
\bibitem[Zahra ()]{b43}\label{b43} 	 		\textit{The relationship between Islamic work ethics and religiosity on job performance: The mediating effect of work engagement},  		 			N Zahra 		.  		2015. Malaysia.  		 			Utara University 		 	 	 (A Master thesis) 
\bibitem[Rosli ()]{b36}\label{b36} 	 		\textit{The relationship between person perceived of fit and working engagement},  		 			N Rosli 		.  		2015. Malaysia.  		 			Utara University 		 	 	 (A Master thesis) 
\bibitem[Al-Domi and Abbas ()]{b3}\label{b3} 	 		\textit{The role of social intelligence in achieving high performance-A survey of the opinions of a sample of university leaders and faculty members at the University of Kufa},  		 			Walid Al-Domi 		,  		 			Abbas 		.  		2011.  		 			Faculty of Management and Economics -University of Kufa 		 	 	 (Master's thesis unpublished) 
\bibitem[Befort and Hattrup ()]{b9}\label{b9} 	 		‘Valuing Task and Contextual Performance: Experience, Job Roles, and Ratings of the Importance of Job Behaviors’.  		 			N Befort 		,  		 			K Hattrup 		.  	 	 		\textit{Applied H.R.M. Research}  		2003. 8  (1)  p. .  	 
\bibitem[Schaufeli ()]{b38}\label{b38} 	 		‘What is engagement’.  		 			W Schaufeli 		.  	 	 		\textit{Employee Engagement in Theory and Practice},  				 			C Truss,  			K Alfes,  			R Delbridge,  			A Shantz,  			\& E Soane 		 (ed.)  		 (London)  		2013. Routledge.  	 
\bibitem[Fleming and Asplund (2007)]{b13}\label{b13} 	 		\textit{Where employee engagement happens},  		 			J Fleming 		,  		 			J Asplund 		.  		 \url{http://gmj.gallup.com/content/102496/Where-Employee-EngagementHappens.aspx}  		2007. March. 2016. Gallup Management Press.  	 
\end{bibitemlist}
 			 		 	 
\end{document}
