Engagement Report

A Research Report

Captain Yogendra Bhattacharya, PhD

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRY

IS YOUR SEAFARER TRULY ENGAGED?

1

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRY

IS YOUR SEAFARER TRULY ENGAGED?

INTRODUCTION

The last decade has seen the international maritime industry coping

with increased losses due to ship casualties, accidents,

environmental pollution incidents and the like that can be traced

back to human factors. Adding to the woes of ship owners are weak

freight markets, and a shortage of quality officers, partly caused by

the negative image being acquired by it in the face of these

incidents. The shortage of experienced and quality officers is

alarming as it directly impacts the performance, safety and retention

of seafarers. Not only has the industry become unattractive to

potential newcomers, existing seafarers are also leaving a sailing

career to settle in safer jobs ashore. This has resulted in an increase in

horizontal mobility of officers between employers, and combined

with the general exodus does not portend well for shipping. The

industry thus needs to reinvent itself and position it as a career of

choice for the youth of today.

Similar problems are also reported from shore based industries, and

these are being addressed by focusing more on employees as the

source of competitive advantage. Numerous practices are being

developed and followed effectively by HR practitioners to enhance

the performance of employees and utilize their full potential. One of

the recent practices developed and successfully implemented is the

concept of Employee Engagement.

Engagement refers to the physical, emotional and cognitive

commitment employees have to the job and organization. Engaged

employees have a bond with the employer, are involved and

enthusiastic about their work, use discretionary effort and willingly go

the extra mile for the organization.

Engagement

Worldwide

Gallup's 142-

country

study (2013) found

13.0% employees

worldwide

Engaged at work

63.0% found to be

Not Engaged

.

24.0% found to be

Actively disengaged

GALLUP. (2013), State of the global workplace, http://www.gallup.com/strat

egicconsulting/164735/state-

global-workplace.aspx

2

WHAT IS EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT?

The construct of Engagement has a comparatively short time line,

having been conceptualized by Kahn (1990). He defined

engagement as the harnessing of organization members selves to

their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express

themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role

performances. Wellins and Concelman (2005) define engagement

as the illusive force that motivates employees to higher (or lower)

levels of performance. They also suggest that engagement is an

amalgamation of commitment, loyalty, productivity and ownership.

Robinson, et al (2004) provide one of the most definitive and

descriptive definition as being a positive attitude held by the

employee towards the organization and its values. An engaged

employee is aware of business context, and works with colleagues to

improve performance within the job for the benefit of the

organization. The organization must work to nurture, maintain and

grow the engagement, which requires a two-way relationship

between employer and employee.

Numerous studies have shown positive linkages between

Engagement and business outcomes such as productivity,

performance, safety, turnover, and customer loyalty. Engagement

can be measured and enhancement programs across industries

have also resulted in benefits to organizations at both individual and

organizational levels.

Engagement has been conceptualised as the positive antithesis of

burnout - an erosion of work engagement, by means of which

energy turns into exhaustion, involvement into cynicism, and efficacy

into ineffectiveness (Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter 2001). Engagement

was further characterized as an energetic state of involvement with

personally fulfilling activities to enhance ones sense of professional

efficacy.

Since Kahns seminal work, the construct has undergone rigorous

testing and analysis by academics as well as practitioners, making it

a popular concept in HRM today.

Engagement

Defined

The extent to which

employees are

motivated to contribute

to organizational

success, and are willing

to apply discretionary

effort to accomplishing

tasks important to the

achievement of

organizational goals.

(Macey and Schneider, 2008)

A positive, fulfilling and

work-related state of

mind that is

characterised by

vigour, dedication

(efficacy) and

absorption

(Schaufeli, et al, 2002)

..

A heightened

emotional and

intellectual connection

that an employee has

for his or her

organization, manager,

or co-workers that, in

turn, influences him/her

to apply additional

discretionary effort to

his/her work

(Gibbons, 2006)

....

Amount of

discretionary effort

exhibited by employees

in their jobs

(Frank et al, 2004)

3

BENEFITS OF ENGAGEMENT

Engaged employees are more satisfied and have better wellbeing.

The incentives to organizations are expected to be much greater,

and fairly consistent results have been demonstrated regarding the

positive outcomes of implementing engagement enhancing

strategies, both in academic and practitioner contexts (Robertson-

Smith and Markwick, 2009).

Gallup (2008) reported engaged employees have

51% lower turnover

27% less absenteeism

18% more productivity

12% higher profitability

Watson Wyatt found that highly engaged employees

Are twice as likely as their less engaged peers to be top

performers.

They miss 20% fewer days of work.

About 75% of them exceed or far exceed expectations in their

most recent performance review.

En

ga

ge

me

nt

Ou

tco

me

s

Improved employee productivity

Better organizational financial performance

Improved bottom line profits

Increased employee retention

Advocacy of the organization

Enhanced managerial self-efficacy

More effective change management

Better safety and health, reduced costs

Enhanced customer loyalty

Engagement Benefits

Results from Caterpillars

engagement initiatives:

$8.8 million annual

savings from decreased

attrition, absenteeism

and overtime

70% increase in output

in less than four months

Decrease in the break

even point by almost

50% in units/day, and a

decrease in grievances

by 80%, $2 million

increase in profit and a

34% increase in highly

satisfied customers

Beverage giant Molson

Coors found:

Engaged employees

were five times less likely

than non-engaged

employees to have a

safety incident and

seven times less likely to

have a lost-time safety

incident

Average cost of a

safety incident for

engaged employees

was $63, compared

with an average of $392

for non-engaged

employees, saving

$1,721,760 in safety

costs

Vance (2006)

4

WHAT DRIVES ENGAGEMENT?

Employee engagement has different connotations to different

people. Conditions that promote engagement in one industry or

organization may not be considered valid in another. The drivers of

engagement are numerous and depend on many variables such as

the type of industry, age, role, tenure, and even geographical

regions of the world. A multitude of drivers are suggested, both within

the consultancy literature as well as the limited academic literature,

apart from wide ranging views of employers, organizations,

academics, consultants and even employees themselves.

Engagement has been successfully measured by many

organizations, mainly consultancy groups like Gallup, Hewitt

Associates, Towers Perrin, Blessing White, ISR etc. The antecedents of

engagement are generally similar across all findings, with marginal

differences. A comparison between the various models reveals the

following to be the most cited drivers of engagement:

Recognition of work

Performance management

Voice heard

Feeling valued

Financial rewards

Pride in company

Company advocacy

Nature of work

Best friend at work

Senior managers

Intrinsic motivation

Job demands

Autonomy

Career growth

Work resources

Co-workers

Driver Facts

In a UK study, only 29%

of workers believed that

senior management

was genuinely

concerned with

employee well-being;

31% found

communication with

senior management

open and honest; 3%

considered themselves

and their contribution

treated by managers as

essential to the

organisation, while a

significant 60% felt that

they were being

treated like just another

organizational asset to

be managed by seniors

(Watson Wyatt, 2007)

-----------------------------------

A survey of 10,000 NHS

employees in the UK

identified that the

feeling of being

involved and valued

was a key enabler of

employee

engagement. This

included elements such

as involvement in

decision making,

freedom to offer

suggestions, personal

development

prospects, and the

concern for employees

demonstrated by the

organization.

(Robinson et al, 2004)

5

THE ENGAGEMENT PROCESS

Engaged Employees

Physical Expression

Cognitive Attachement

Emotional Connection

Take Initiative

Believe can make

a difference to business outcomes

Stay vigilant

and focused

Support & reinforce culture &

values

Voluntarily put in effort

Create Employees Who Are

Proud, loyal & committed

Go the extra mile Feel ownership of the organization

Driver Facts

The culture of including

employees in the larger

picture is known as

people practices and

leaders of the best

managed companies

maintain constant

communication with

their employees

regarding its direction,

competitive

strategies, long and

short term objectives,

and the progress being

made in their

achievement.

..

Best Employers who

provide sufficient

opportunities to their

employees, assisting

them in their

development as well as

personal and

professional growth

..

This commitment to

training and

development does not

go unappreciated by its

employees who are

Page | 54

73% more willing to take

on additional

responsibilities,

compared to 51% in

other organizations

(Hewitt, 2004)

Who

7

ENGAGEMENT AND THE MARITIME INDUSTRY

The maritime industry has not been left untouched by the changing

international operating environment. Every day brings in newer

challenges that must be overcome in order to survive and eventually

succeed. These challenges come in the form of newer legislations,

changing requirements of vessels trading areas, newer

technologies, environmental pollution issues, incidents and

accidents, and the ever present need to reducing operating costs.

A majority of the above issues lie within the purview of ship owners.

However, the operational aspects of ships are well within the domain

of the ships crew, and it is essential that they rise to the demands of

the industry and raise their performance levels.

The incident snapshots on the left leave no doubt in anyones minds

that the root cause of these losses is the competence levels of the

crew manning and operating ships. This being apparent, a case can

be built on raising seafarers competence levels. This is however

easier said than done. In todays age of multinational crews and

different competence measurement regimes, despite regulations to

this effect, attaining the same standards of competence across the

world fleet may not be practicably feasible. There is no dearth of

training courses that seafarers have to undergo, but these do not

appear to be enhancing skills, making it more of a paperwork

exercise.

There are many other issues relating to crewing that impact

operational performance such as a diminishing pool of experienced

senior officers who are always on the lookout for a shore assignment,

an expected career span of 5 10 years for new entrants, the

inability of the industry to attract potentially good seafarers, the

negative image of the industry due to criminalisation of seafarers,

lowering of entry level requirements, and the like. With the near

disappearance of officers from the traditionally maritime nations,

even in the developing world a maritime career has moved away

from being a career of choice to one where the door is open to all

those who cannot fit anywhere else. A majority of shipowners, in their

short term zeal to save construction costs, have also done away with

cabins on board for trainees. All these compound to create a

situation that does not exactly become a nurturing ground for

quality future officers.

Snapshots

In the five years to 2005,

an average of 18 ships

collided, grounded,

sank, caught fire or

exploded every single

day. Incredibly, two

ships sank every day.

The Standard P&I Club

estimates that over a

recent ten-year period,

insurance claims cost

the P&I industry US$15

billion. Thats US$4

million dollars every

day.

Over 65% of this vast

pay-out US$10 billion

was for incidents in

which humans played

the dominant part.

In 2008, a maritime

disaster occurred on

average nearly every

week. Each one

involved an insurance

claim of over US$17m or

had an economic

impact of over US$85m.

(MCA, 2010)

8

The industry and regulatory bodies, on their part, have taken steps

reactively and not proactively to address these issues of

operational competence. Prime among these are investment in

newer technologies, promulgation of new rules and regulations, and

investment in automation. This appears to be a throwback to the

early days of industrial safety where people were considered to be

accident prone, and safeguards instead of training was the only

acceptable way out. However, new advancements are based in

the misplaced assumption that seafarers will be able to master their

use something quite unlikely given the modern day recruits and

their shore/ship based training regimen.

To quote ABS (2012):

The maritime industry is still some way from achieving the goal of

peak safety performance (i.e., no operational incidents, no

personal injuries, and no harm to the environment).There is a

general recognition in the industry that encouraging safe working

practices does not require more rules, regulations, and

procedures. Instead, the industry needs a better understanding of

the social and organizational factors that foster professionalism in

the seafarer in routine and emergency situations.

The industry focus should therefore shift towards making seafarers

truly competent in their professions, not only through essential and

quality training, but also by addressing the social and organizational

factors that foster professionalism in seafarers. In other words, the

intent should be to bring back pride in the profession.

One of the ways to do this is by embracing the principles of

employee engagement which have been successfully used in

numerous industries worldwide. It is this engaged seafarer that can

make all the difference as what the industry requires are seafarers

who are physically, cognitively and emotionally committed to the

organization, have a feeling of ownership of the organization, are

passionate and enthusiastic about their jobs, are motivated, involved

and satisfied with their work, and, above all, are willing to put in

discretionary effort and go the extra mile for the organization.

Snapshots

The International Union

of Marine Insurance

(IUMI) declared 2006 to

be a catastrophic year

for hull claims. The next

year, it was four times

worse.

IUMI reports the

average number of

incidents involving the

serious or total loss of

vessels over 500gt had

steadily risen in the 15-

year period to 2008.

60% of these around

two major incidents per

day in 2008 were due

to human error.

In 2008, maritime

insurers paid out over

half a billion US dollars

for casualties.

In 2009, the renewal

costs for the

International Group of

P&I Clubs increased by

an average of 16.5%.

The final costs for the

1989 Exxon Valdez

disaster were US$4

billion.

(MCA, 2010)

9

MEASURING ENGAGEMENT

Employee Engagement can be quantitatively measured using

survey tools and questionnaires. There are many such questionnaires

available and in use, some developed in-house by organizations,

while many developed by major consultancies. The most popular is

the Gallup Workplace Audit (GWA Q12), while some others are the

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES), and instruments developed

by consultancies such as IES, Towers Perrin, and Blessing White etc.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to measure the engagement levels of

Indian officers, and to determine the relationship between

Engagement and Performance, Safety, and Retention. It was also

determined if there is any relationship between engagement and

rank as well tenure with the shipping company.

RESEARCH DESIGN

The questionnaire was designed using the engagement,

performance, safety and retention drivers identified through

literature review. For engagement, the Gallup Q12 formed the base,

modified to suit the maritime environment. A focus group then

commented on the suitability of the questionnaire, and the final

instrument was drawn up. The survey instrument was in four parts,

each measuring one variable; demographic information was

collected through eight statements.

Convenience sampling was used as no sampling frame is available,

and there are no special demographic groups which could

introduce bias.

The data was collected from active Indian officers, attending

mandatory courses at two maritime colleges in New Delhi and the

NCR region, over a period of three months. The questionnaire was

personally administered and collected at the same time. A total of

448 responses collected. 15 were rejected due incomplete data

giving 433 responses for analysis.

SPSS 20 was used for analysis, with Varimax orthogonal rotation and

Kaiser normalization for extraction.

Data Collection

Sample Size: 433

Deck Off: 337

Engineers: 94

Senior Offs: 102

Junior Offs: 331

Av Age Dk: 27.4 yrs

Av Age Eng: 29.3 yrs

..

Methodology based on

U.S. Merit Systems

Protection Board (2008)

Engagement scale

developed using 15

items, performance

scale with 19 items,

safety scale with 19

items, and retention

scale using 18 items

Engagement Variables -

seven factors extracted

accounting for 68.555 %

of variance

Performance Variables -

eight factors extracted


of variance

Safety Variables - Seven

factors extracted


of variance

Retention Variables - Six

factors extracted


of variance

10

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The engagement scale was developed using 15 items, retention and

performance scales with 17 items, and safety scale with 19 items.

These scales assisted in categorizing seafarers as Engaged, Partially

Engaged and Disengaged, apart from indicating their scores on

performance, safety and retention. Each question was weighted

from 5 (Strongly Agree) to 1 (Strongly Disagree). Respondents scoring

5 on all items would have a total score of 85 on performance and

retention, 95 on safety, and 75 on engagement. Similarly, if the score

on all items is 1, the scores would be 17 for performance and

retention, 19 for safety, and 15 for engagement.

Respondents are classified as Engaged if they agree with each of

the 15 items on engagement, i.e., they responded Agree which

had a weightage of 4. Thus the engaged category would have a

minimum score of 60.

The Partially Engaged is the segment scoring between 60 and pure

neutrality, or 45 (answered each item with Neither Agree nor

Disagree). The Disengaged category consists of those who score

less than 45 overall.

A similar methodology is used for the other variables of Safety,

Performance, and Retention.

The results arrived at after analysis indicated that the respondents

levels on the four variables measured were very low, and are

summarized below.

ENGAGEMENT: The mean Engagement Score was calculated as 51.69, with a standard deviation of 6.416, and standard error of 0.304.

The individual engagement scores ranged from a low of 34, to a high

of 71. Only 10.6% of respondents could be categorized as engaged,

with 11.8% disengaged.

10.60% 77.60% 11.80%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

EN

GA

GEM

EN

T Engaged Partially Engaged Disengaged

Highlights

10.6% of Officers were found

to be engaged


to be partially engaged


to be disengaged

11

PERFORMANCE: The mean Performance Score was calculated

as 55.88, with a standard deviation of 6.650, and standard error of

0.320. The individual performance score ranged from a low of 38 to a

high of 74. On performance, only 5.6% of officers could be

considered in the high category.

SAFETY: The mean Safety Score was calculated as 65.85, with a

standard deviation of 8.741, and standard error of 0.420. The

individual safety scores ranged from a low of 40 to a high of 89. A

slightly higher percentage, 13.4% of officers fell in the high category.

RETENTION: The mean Retention Score was calculated as 55.45,

with a standard deviation of 9.278, and standard error of 0.446. The

individual safety scores ranged from a low of 30 to a high of 80. The

high category had 9.2%, while the low had 30.5% officers.

5.60% 72.00% 22.40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

PER

FO

RM

AN

CE

High Medium Low

13.40% 72.30% 14.30%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

SA

FETY

High Medium Low

9.20% 60.30% 30.50%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Re

ten

tio

n

High Medium Low

Highlights

Performance

Levels

High: 5.60%

Medium: 72.0%

Low: 22.4%

Safety Levels

High: 13.4%

Medium: 72.3%

Low: 14.3%

Retention Levels

High: 9.2%

Medium: 60.3%

Low: 30.5%

12

CORRELATION ANALYSIS

Engagement of officers was found to be significantly correlated with

Performance r = 0.786 and R2 = 0.617

Safety r = 0.791 and R2 = 0.626

Retention r = 0.811 and R2 = 0.657

This testifies to the high and positive relationship of engagement with

performance, safety and retention.

There was a significant difference found in the engagement levels of

senior officers versus junior officers. The correlation, however, was not

very strong.

Contrary to findings from engagement literature, the relationship

between engagement and tenure of officers was not found to be

statistically significant, leading to the conclusion that longer service

with a shipping company did not result in higher engagement levels.

ENGAGEMENT DRIVERS

The factors responsible for engagement were found to be:

Work & Co-Workers

Work Environment

Career Advancement

Financial Rewards

Job Demands

Work Autonomy

Organizational Support

On performance, the drivers were found to be

Commitment of Organization

Training & Development

Pay & Benefits

Work Resources

Work Initiative

Work Environment

Regulatory Compliance

Job Security

Findings

50.5% found good work recognized

opportunities

47.4% agreed they had necessary

spares/stores

44.1% were happy with pay

30.8% were satisfied with benefits

51.5% accepted their Company was

genuinely interested

in their safety and well

being

53.3% were proud of their organization

31.1% agreed that their suggestions were

valued

35.6% said their Company treated all

seafarers equally

73.9% stated they could perform better

at their jobs

13

As regards Safety, the factors derived were:

Safety Support


Resource Availability

Safety Climate

Job Demands

Just Culture

Safety Compliance

On Retention, the following were isolated as contributory factors:

Shipboard Life


Recognition of Merit

Remuneration

Just Culture

Job Security

ENHANCING ENGAGEMENT

The survey revealed that there are many areas where ship owners

could focus on to increase engagement levels. Engagement is a

continuum and there are many officers who are close to being

engaged. Ship owners can concentrate on these as they will require

the least effort to engage fully. Among the issues that raise concern

are:

Recognition of good work

Work and Rest issues

Lack of a No-blame culture

Inadequate stores/spares

Shipboard life issues such as recreation, communication

Adequate shore leave and work/life balance

Autonomy at work

Grievance redressal

Fair treatment

Feeling of being a part of the organization

Providing benefits

Findings

36.7% found shipboard

recreational facilities

to be good

37.1% found their grievances addressed

38.6% attested to good communication

facilities on board

43.2% felt efforts were made to relieve

them on time

33.2% have taken short cuts

41.8% get enough rest

19.9% agree efforts were made to

procure shore leave

for them

47.6% felt paperwork has

removed the

challenge

30.5% agreed they could work

without office

interference

14

It can also be seen that a majority of officers stated that they could

perform better and contribute by reducing wastage, given the right

conditions. These are issues, along with other positive aspects found,

that should be leveraged by ship owners to optimize the capacity of

their seafarers.

All engagement initiatives do not require the expending of monetary

resources and can be well managed within the existing

infrastructure. However, each ship owner needs to identify their own

barriers to engagement, and then have initiatives in place to remove

them.

In general, the following measures could be considered as primary:

1. Improve Organizational Support: Lack of Perceived

Organizational Support is the biggest barrier. Trust in executives

can have more than twice the impact on engagement levels

than trust in immediate managers

2. Ensure Job Security: Maritime employment is itself based on

impermanency - contractual. However both the company and

seafarers benefit by changing over to regular employment

3. Provide Benefits: Augmenting pay packages with benefits has a

positive effect on retention and will greatly enhance a sense of

belonging and contribute to engagement

4. Enhance Work Culture: Reduced autonomy and standing due

increased day-to-day direction from shore one of the barriers to

retention at sea. Provide autonomy and a no blame culture

allowing officers to exercise discretionary effort and go the

extra mile

5. Improve Quality of Shipboard Life: The monotony of working and

living aboard modern cargo ships adds to the boredom and

social isolation of seafarers. Better quality of shipboard

accommodation, recreational facilities and communication

facilities will improve the quality of life, demonstrate POS and

enhance engagement

6. Reduce Workload & Fatigue: Excess work and inadequate

quantity or quality of rest result in fatigue - a major factor on

board with ships being run on skeletal crews. Fatigue is a major

cause of accidents and has been accepted by all stakeholders.

Findings

40.6% found workload excessive

35.3% happy with work/life balance

18% agreed to a no-blame culture

28.2% find their Company placing

quality above costs

40% felt an important part of the

company

66% preferred regular employment

over contracts

47.8% found superintendents/

seniors good role

models

47.1% were happy working for any owner

73.3% considered they could contribute

more by avoiding

wastage

15

CONCLUSION

Seafaring is a career that requires seafarers who can take initiative,

exercise discretionary effort, take ownership of their job, and willingly

go the extra mile for the organization in essence, they must be

engaged. Engagement is however a two way street wherein the

organization needs to visibly demonstrate its intent and allow its

seafarers to use their creativity, initiative and develop their decision

making skills, something which can only be undertaken in an

atmosphere of mutual trust and respect. Being the larger

stakeholders, the onus thus falls on ship owners to have such systems

in place. Modern ship management systems do not allow too much

liberty by way of allowing for seafarers initiative and creativity, but a

balance needs to be found within the existing framework.

Once such mechanisms are in place, shipping can also benefit from

improved seafarer performance, enhanced safety on board, as well

as increased retention.

Limitations and Suggestions

1. The survey was carried out only on Indian officers, in Delhi and

NCR region

2. The distribution of senior officers, junior officers, engineers and

deck officers was not proportional

3. There is limited literature available on human resource aspects

of a career at sea

4. The study of engagement of nationalities other than Indians

can be undertaken; different cultural and socio-economic

backgrounds between nations can have an impact on

engagement.

5. The study was also restricted to officers. The scope can be

expanded to include ratings too, as they also form a part of the

operations of ships.

POS

Perceived


(POS) stems from

organizational support

theory, and is the

appraisal employees

make of the extent their

employer values their

contribution, and shows

concern for their well-

being.

Based on this appraisal,

they not only determine

how their socio-

emotional needs will be

met at work, but also

the disposition of the

employer towards

rewards for additional

efforts.

It has been argued that

favourable work

experiences strengthen

POS, as well as the

belief that the decisions

making these

favourable experiences

have been voluntary

and discretionary, and

not a consequence of

regulatory compliance

16

REFERENCES

ABS (2012). Guidance Notes on Safety Culture and Leading Indicators of Safety. Retrieved from:

http://www.eagle.org

Frank, F.D., Finnegan, R.P. and Taylor, C.R. (2004), The race for talent: retaining and engaging workers in

the 21st century, Human Resource Planning, Vol 27, No 3, pp12-25.

Gallup Consulting (2008), Employee Engagement: Whats your engagement ratio? www.gallup.com

GALLUP. (2013), State of the global workplace, www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/164735/state-

global-workplace.aspx

Gibbons, J. (2006). Employee Engagement: A Review of Current Research and Its Implications,

montrealoffice.wikispaces.com

Hewitt. (2004). What Makes a Best Employer?

https://ceplb03.hewitt.com/bestemployers/canada/french/pdfs/bestemployer.pdf

Kahn, W.A. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work,

Academy of Management Journal, Vol 33, pp692-724.

Macey, W., & Schneider, B. (2008).The Meaning of Employee Engagement, Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, 1 (2008), 330.

Maslach, C. Schaufelli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001) Job burnout, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol 52,

pp397-422.

MCA. (2010). The Human Element,

www.dft.gov.uk/mca/the_human_element_a_guide_to_human_behaviour_in_the_shipping_industry.

Robertson-Smith, G., & Markwick, C. (2009), Employee Engagement: A review of current thinking. Brighton,

UK: Institute for Employment Studies

Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004) The Drivers of Employee Engagement. Brighton, Institute

for Employment Studies.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., GonzalezRoma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of

engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 3, 7192

Towers Perrin (2008). Towers Perrin Global Workforce Study 2007-2008, http://www.towersperrin.com

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (2008). The Power of Federal Employee Engagement, www.mspb.gov

Vance, R. (2006). Employee Engagement and Commitment,

www.cashort.com/Libraries/Employee_Recognition_Programs

Watson Wyatt (2007). Playing to Win in a Global Economy: Global Strategic Rewards Report and United

States Findings, www.watsonwyatt.com/research/pdfs/2007-US-0260.pdf

Wellins, R., & Concelman, J. (2005), Creating a culture for engagement,

www.ddiworld.com/pdf/wps_engagement_ar.pdf.

17

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Yogendra Bhattacharya is a professional seafarer, having joined sea in

1978 as a Cadet on the T.S. Rajendra, rising to take command as a

Captain in January 1993. He has been sailing as a Master on sea

going ships, specializing in the transportation and carriage of crude oil

and petroleum products. He has a PhD in Human Resource

Management in the Maritime Industry, and a Masters degree in

Shipping and Logistics Management. He has been teaching maritime

related subjects to MBA students of Port and Shipping Management,

and Energy Trading, since 2007.

This paper is a synopsis of his PhD dissertation Employee Engagement

in the Maritime Industry: A Predictor of Performance, Safety and

Retention.

Other papers published are:

Y. Bhattacharya (2015). Employee Engagement as a Predictor of

Seafarer Retention: A Study Among Indian Officers, Asian Journal of

Shipping and Logistics, Vol. 31, Issue 2, June 2015, pp 295-318,

doi:10.1016/j.ajsl.2015.06.007

Y. Bhattacharya (2014). Employee engagement in the shipping

industry: a study of engagement among Indian officers, World

Maritime University Journal of Maritime Affairs, DOI 10.1007/s13437-014-

0065-x

Y. Bhattacharya (2012). The Drivers of Employee Engagement in the

Maritime Industry: An Empirical Study, Asia Pacific Journal of Research

in Business Management - Volume 3, Issue 11 (November, 2012) ISSN

2229-4104

Y. Bhattacharya (2012). Performance in the Maritime Industry: An

Analysis of its Drivers Among Indian Officers, published in International

Journal of Business Economics & Management Research - Volume 3,

Issue 12 (December, 2012) ISSN 22294848.

Working Papers (under review): Y. Bhattacharya - Measuring Safety

Culture on Ships Using Safety Climate: A study Among Indian Officers,

submitted to Journal of Safety Research

He is currently associated with the University of Petroleum & Energy

Studies, Dehra Dun, as a Visiting Professor.

For any details, he can be reached on [email protected]

Documents

Engagement Report