A STUDY ON THE PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEES

REGARDING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

RESEARCH GUIDE: RESEARCHER:

DR. LEENA MEHTA HEMAL SHAH

YEAR OF SUBMISSION

APRIL, 2009

1

A STUDY ON THE PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEES

REGARDING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

DISERTATION SUBMITTED

ON

THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF

MASTERS OF HUMAN RESROUCE MANGEMENT

IN THE

FACULTY OF SOCIAL WORK

FROM

MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF BARODA.

RESEARCH GUIDE: RESEARCHER:

DR. LEENA MEHTA HEMAL SHAH

YEAR OF SUBMISSION

APRIL, 2009

2

A STUDY ON THE PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEES

REGARDING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

(A STUDY OF PERCEPTION OF 70 EMPLOYEES REGARDING

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN TRANPEK LTD)

RESEARCH GUIDE: RESEARCHER:

DR. LEENA MEHTA HEMAL SHAH

YEAR OF SUBMISSION

APRIL, 2009

3

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Human Resource Management (HRM) emerged during the 1930s. Many

people used to refer it by its traditional titles, such as Personnel Administration

or Personnel Management. But now, the trend is changing. It is now termed

as Human Resource Management (HRM). Human Resource Management is

a management function that helps an organization select, recruit, train and

develops.

”Human Resource Management is defined as the people who staff and

manage organization”. It comprises of the functions and principles that are

applied to retaining, training, developing, and compensating the employees in

organization. It is also applicable to non-business organizations, such as

education, healthcare, etc.

“Human Resource Management is defined as the set of activities, programs,

and functions that are designed to maximize both organizational as well as

employee effectiveness”. The Scope of HRM is vast. All the activities of

employee, from the time of his entry into an organization until he leaves, come

under the horizon of HRM. The divisions included in HRM are Recruitment,

Payroll, Performance Management, Training and Development, Retention,

Industrial Relation, etc.

While Miller (1987) suggests that HRM relates to:

"Those decisions and actions which concern the management of employees

at all levels in the business and which are related to the implementation of

strategies directed towards creating and sustaining competitive advantage"

Torrington and Hall (1987) define personnel management as being:

4

“A series of activities which: first enable working people and their employing

organisations to agree about the objectives and nature of their working

relationship and, secondly, ensures that the agreement is fulfilled"

1.2 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

The Employee engagement has shown up in Workforce Magazine (2005),

Harvard Business Review (2005) and the Washington Post (2005), mention

the websites of many Human Resources consulting firms such as DDI (2005)

and Towers Perrin (2003).

Employee engagement, a term coined by the Gallup Research group, seems

to be attractive for two reasons.

Employee engagement has shown to have a statistical relationship

with productivity, profitability, employee retention, safety, and customer

satisfaction (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Coffman & Gonzalez-

Molina, 2002). Similar relationships have not been shown for most

traditional organizational constructs such as job satisfaction (Fisher &

Locke, 1992).

The parameters used in employee engagement surveys measure

aspects of the workplace that are under the control of the local

manager.

The Gallup Organization coined the term employee engagement, in its

present usage because of interviewing and surveying employees and

managers from last 25 years. Their intent was to create a measure of

workplaces that could be used for comparisons.

In First, Break all the Rules, the original book coming out of the Gallup

research, Buckingham & Coffman (1999) report that Gallup spent years

refining a set of employee opinion questions that are related to organizational

outcomes. The statistically derived items, called the Gallup Workplace Audit

(GWA), that measure employee engagement are related to productivity,

profitability, employee retention and customer service at the business unit

5

level (hospital, hotel, factory, etc.). They report that employees who score high

on the questions are “emotionally engaged” in the work and the organization.

Coffman & Gonzalez-Molina (2002) in Follow This Path, the second book

coming out of the Gallup research, say that engagement is not only about how

people think but also about how they feel. They say that the engaged

employees collectively are an “economic force that fuels an organization’s

profit growth.” They group employees into three categories, the actively

engaged, the non-engaged, and the actively disengaged employees.

In both books reporting the Gallup Organization research, the authors spend

considerable time and space explaining the meta-analytic techniques used to

find the relationships between the items in their questionnaire and the

business unit level outcomes. They spent considerably less time defining and

validating the construct of employee engagement. Because of this lack of

construct definition, subsequent users interpret the construct in different ways.

1.3 EVOLUTION OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

Engagement at work was conceptualized by Kahn, (1990) as the ‘harnessing

of organizational members’ selves to their work roles. In engagement, people

employ and express themselves physically and emotionally during role

performances. The second related construct to engagement in organizational

behavior is the notion of flow advanced by Csikszentmihalyi.

Csikzentmihalyi (1975) defines flow as the ‘holistic sensation’ that, people feel

when they act with total involvement. Flow is the state in which there is little

distinction between the self and environment. When individuals are in flow

state little conscious control is necessary for their actions.

Employee engagement is the thus the level of commitment and

involvement an employee has towards their 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

6

organization. The organization must work to develop and nurture

engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between employer and

employee.’ Thus Employee engagement is a barometer that determines the

association of a person with the organization.

Engagement is most closely associated with the existing construction of job

involvement (Brown 1996) and flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Job involvement

is defined as ‘the degree to which the job situation is central to the person and

his or her identity (Lawler & Hall, 1970). Kanungo (1982) maintained that job

involvement is a ‘Cognitive or belief state of Psychological identification. Job

involvement is thought to depend on both need saliency and the potential of a

job to satisfy these needs. Thus job involvement results form a cognitive

judgment about the needs satisfying abilities of the job.

Engagement differs from job involvement as it is concerned more with how the

individual employees his/her self during the performance of his / her job.

Furthermore, engagement entails the active use of emotions. Finally

engagement may be thought of as an antecedent to job involvement in that

individuals who experience deep engagement in their roles should come to

identify with their jobs.

When Kahn talked about employee engagement he has given important to all

three aspects physically, cognitively and emotionally. Whereas in job

satisfaction importance has been more given to cognitive side. HR

practitioners believe that the engagement challenge has a lot to do with how

employee feels about the about work experience and how he or she is treated

in the organization. It has a lot to do with emotions which are fundamentally

related to drive bottom line success in a company. There will always be

people who never give their best efforts no matter how hard HR and line

managers try to engage them. “But for the most part employees want to

commit to companies because doing so satisfies a powerful and a basic need

in connect with and contribute to something significant”.

7

1.4 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT DEFINED:

En·gage·ment (in-’gaj-ment)—the extent to which people value, enjoy, and

believe in what they do. The following several definitions, beginning with the

definitions from the empirically-based Gallup researchers and proceeding to

the definitions used by others seeking to apply the construct.

1.4.1 RESEARCHERS:

Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) define employee engagement as “the

individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work”

Lucey, Bateman and Hines (2005) interpret the Gallup Engagement Index as

measuring “how each individual employee connects with your company and

how each individual employee connects with your customers”.

DDI (2005) uses the definition “The extent to which people value, enjoy and

believe in what they do”. DDI also states that its measure is similar to

employee satisfaction and loyalty.

Fleming, Coffman and Harter (2005) (Gallup Organization researchers) use

the term committed employees as a synonym for engaged

employees‚ Gallup’s Human Sigma website (2005) likens employee

engagement to the concept of customer engagement, which has the

dimensions of confidence, integrity, pride and passion‚

Wellins and Concelman (2004) call employee engagement “the illusive force

that motivates employees to higher levels of performance” “This coveted

energy” is similar to commitment to the organization, job ownership and pride,

more discretionary effort (time and energy), passion and excitement,

commitment to execution and the bottom line. They call it “an amalgam of

commitment, loyalty, productivity and ownership”. They also refer to it as

“feelings or attitudes employees have toward their jobs and organizations”

8

Robinson, Perryman and Hayday (2004) define engagement as “a positive

attitude held by the employee towards the organization and its values. An

engaged employee is aware of the business context, works with colleagues to

improve performance within the job for the benefit of the organization. The

organization must develop and nurture engagement, which is a two-way

relationship between employer and employee”. They say that engagement

overlaps with commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, but it is

two-way relationship. They say it is “one step up” from commitment.‚

The Business Communicator (2005) reports definitions of engagement from

three people they label experienced employee engagement practitioners.

Those three definitions are, as follows:

Engagement is two sides of a coin, the knowledge needed to do one’s

job effectively and the motivation to apply that knowledge.

Increasing workforce dedication to achieve a business outcome.

Employee engagement is a social process by which people become

personally implicated in strategy and change in their daily work.

1.4.2 CORPORATIONS:

Caterpillar

Engagement is the extent of employees' commitment, work effort, and desire

to stay in an organization.

Dell Inc.

Engagement: To compete today, companies need to win over the MINDS

(rational commitment) and the HEARTS (emotional commitment) of

employees in ways that lead to extraordinary effort.

Intuit, Inc.

Engagement describes how an employee thinks and feels about, and acts

toward his or her job, the work experience and the company.

9

Corporate Leadership Council

Engagement: The extent to which employees commit to something or

someone in their organization, how hard they work and how long they stay as

a result of that commitment.

Development Dimensions International

Engagement is the extent to which people enjoy and believe in what they do,

and feel valued for doing it.

Gallup Organization

Employee engagement is the involvement with and enthusiasm for work

Hewitt Associates

Engagement is the state of emotional and intellectual commitment to an

organization or group producing behavior that will help fulfill an organization's

promises to customers - and, in so doing, improve business results. Engaged

employees:

Stay - They have an intense desire to be a part of the organization and

they stay with that organization;

Say - They advocate for the organization by referring potential

employees and customers, are positive with co-workers and are

constructive in their criticism;

Strive - They exert extra effort and engage in behaviors that contribute

to business success.

Employee engagement definitions vary from “a positive emotional connection

to an employee’s work” to “engaged employees are inspired to go above and

beyond the call of duty to help meet business goals”

IES defines engagement as:

‘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

10

organisation. The organisation must work to develop and nurture

engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between employer and

employee.’

Institute for Employment Studies

Engagement: A positive attitude held by the employee toward 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 develop and nurture

engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between employer and

employee.

Kenexa

Engagement is the extent to which employees are motivated to contribute to

organizational success, and are willing to apply discretionary effort (extra time,

brainpower and effort) to accomplishing tasks that are important to the

achievement of organizational goals.

Towers Perrin

Engagement is the extent to which employees put discretionary effort into

their work, beyond the required minimum to get the job done, in the form of

extra time, brainpower or energy.

1.5 ASPECTS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

Three basic aspects of employee engagement according to the global studies

are:-

The employees and their own unique psychological make up and

experience

The employers and their ability to create the conditions that promote

employee engagement

Interaction between employees at all levels.

11

Thus, it is largely the organization’s responsibility to create an environment

and culture conducive to this partnership, and a win-win equation.

1.6 CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

According to the Gallup the Consulting organization, there are different types

of people:-

Engaged--"Engaged" employees are builders. They want to know the desired

expectations for their role so they can meet and exceed them. They're

naturally curious about their company and their place in it. They perform at

consistently high levels. They want to use their talents and strengths at work

every day. They work with passion and they drive innovation and move their

organization forward

Not Engaged---Not-engaged employees tend to concentrate on tasks rather

than the goals and outcomes they are expected to accomplish. They want to

be told what to do just so they can do it and say they have finished. They

focus on accomplishing tasks vs. achieving an outcome. Employees who are

not-engaged tend to feel their contributions are being overlooked, and their

potential is not being tapped. They often feel this way because they don't

have productive relationships with their managers or with their coworkers.

Actively Disengaged--The "actively disengaged" employees are the "cave

dwellers." They're "Consistently against Virtually Everything." They're not just

unhappy at work; they're busy acting out their unhappiness .They sow seeds

of negativity at every opportunity. Every day, actively disengaged workers

undermine what their engaged coworkers accomplish. As workers

increasingly rely on each other to generate products and services, the

problems and tensions that are fostered by actively disengaged workers can

cause great damage to an organization's functioning.

1.7 IMPORTANCE OF ENGAGEMENT

12

Engagement is important for managers to cultivate given that disengagement

or alienation is central to the problem of workers’ lack of commitment and

motivation (Aktouf). Meaningless work is often associated with apathy and

detachment from ones works (Thomas and Velthouse). In such conditions,

individuals are thought to be estranged from their selves (Seeman, 1972).

Other research using a different resource of engagement (involvement and

enthusiasm) has linked it to such variables as employee turnover, customer

satisfaction – loyalty, safety and to a lesser degree, productivity and

profitability criteria (Harter, Schnidt & Hayes, 2002). An organization’s

capacity to manage employee engagement is closely related to its ability to

achieve high performance levels and superior business results. Some of the

advantages of Engaged employees are

Engaged employees will stay with the company, be an advocate of the

company and its products and services, and contribute to bottom line

business success.

They will normally perform better and are more motivated.

There is a significant link between employee engagement and

profitability.

They form an emotional connection with the company. This impacts

their attitude towards the company’s clients, and thereby improves

customer satisfaction and service levels

It builds passion, commitment and alignment with the organization’s

strategies and goals

Increases employees’ trust in the organization

Creates a sense of loyalty in a competitive environment

Provides a high-energy working environment

Boosts business growth

Makes the employees effective brand ambassadors for the company

A highly engaged employee will consistently deliver beyond expectations. In

the workplace research on employee engagement (Harter, Schmidt & Hayes,

2002) have repeatedly asked employees ‘whether they have the opportunity

to do what they do best everyday’. While one in five employees strongly agree

13

with this statement. Those work units scoring higher on this perception have

substantially higher performance. Thus employee engagement is critical to

any organization that seeks to retain valued employees. The Watson Wyatt

consulting companies has been proved that there is an intrinsic link between

employee engagement, customer loyalty, and profitability. As organizations

globalize and become more dependent on technology in a virtual working

environment, there is a greater need to connect and engage with employees

to provide them with an organizational ‘identity.’

1.8 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS:

Schmitt & Klimoski (1991) define a construct as “a concept that has been

deliberately created or adopted for a scientific purpose”. A construct cannot

be observed; it must be inferred. For Instance, by observing a set of behaviors

one might infer that a person possesses a particular construct, such as

maturity. The measure must be validated by comparing and contrasting the

construct to similar and different constructs to demonstrate that it is related to

those constructs in theoretically predictable ways. In the following sections,

definitions of employee engagement used by various researchers will be

presented.

1.8.1 Attitude or behavior:

The job attitude makes a distinction between attitudes (affective responses to

an object or situation), behavioral intentions based on attitudes, and actual

behaviors (Roznowsky & Hulin, 1992). A careful examination of the definitions

listed above reveals that the construct of employee engagement has been ill-

defined and misapplied. First of all, most of the authors do not distinguish

between attitudes and behaviors, mixing Instances of both in their definitions.

For Instance, Robinson et al. (2005) mix the concept by defining employee

engagement as: “the individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as

enthusiasm for work,” which is an attitude; “desire to work to make things

better” which is a behavioral intention; and “working longer hours, trying

harder, accomplishing more and speaking positively about the organization”

which are behaviors.

14

The Business Communicator (2005) mixes in concepts such as knowledge

needed to do one’s job and social processes which are not attitudes,

behavioral intentions or behaviors. Wellins and Concelman (2004) mix

commitment, loyalty, productivity and ownership, three attitudes and an

outcome into their definition.

1.8.2 Individual or Group:

The construct of employee engagement lacks clarity as to the level of

analysis. The major strength of the argument made by the Gallup researchers

in all their publications is the relationship of engagement to productivity,

profitability, employee retention, and customer service at the business unit

level (hospital, hotel, factory, etc.). Does this mean that employee

engagement is a group-level phenomenon? If engagement is being used as a

group level phenomenon, good research methods require that it be subjected

to tests of within-group and between-group variance (Dansereau, Alutto &

Yammarino, 1998). An Instance of the confusion is Coffman and Gonzalez-

Molina (2002), who say that there are three mutually exclusive groups based

on their responses to the 12-item Engagement Index, the engaged group, the

non-engaged group and the actively disengaged group. Two things about

their descriptions of these groups are troublesome. First, their profiles of each

of these groups of employees are a disturbing combination of attitudes and

behaviors (e.g., the engaged employee uses talents every day, has consistent

levels of high performance and is emotionally committed to what they do).

Second, the engaged group and the actively disengaged group have

collective effects on profitability and performance. However the non-engaged

group is not considered to have a group effect; they are highly individual.

These effects are not parallel.

In another study, Crabtree (2005) reports that the employees in the three

categories of engagement (engaged, non-engaged, and actively disengaged)

report different levels of positive and negative influences on their

psychological well-being, regardless of the type of work performed. This treats

members of all three groups as individuals. Similarly, Gallup’s Human Sigma

15

website (2005) reports that work groups whose members are positively

engaged have higher productivity, profitability, safety records, attendance and

retention. So, the question is, is employee engagement a group level

phenomenon, an individual phenomenon, or both?

1.9 RELATED CONSTRUCTS:

The construct is that many of the definitions of employee engagement invoke

existing constructs, such as job satisfaction, organizational commitment,

organizational citizenship behaviors, and job involvement, but they do not

demonstrate the relationship of employee engagement to those other

constructs. The following section discusses these related constructs.

1.9.1 Job Satisfaction:

Job satisfaction, a widely researched construct, is defined as a pleasurable or

positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job

experiences (Locke & Henne, 1986). Harter, et al. (2002) begin their

discussion of engagement by using the term engagement-satisfaction, but

drop the satisfaction from the term early in their article. Generalized job

satisfaction has been shown to be related to other attitudes and behaviors.

Positively, it is related to organizational commitment, job involvement,

organizational citizenship behaviors and mental health. Negatively, it is

related to turnover, perceived stress and pro-union voting (Kreitner & Kinicki,

2004). It has been found that while the relationship between job satisfaction

and performance is weak at the individual level, but is stronger at the

aggregate level (Ostroff, 1992). In the engagement literature, Harter, et al.

(2002) invokes Ostroff’s research as a reason for studying employee

engagement at the business unit level.

1.9.2 Organizational commitment.

Organizational commitment is the degree to which an individual identifies with

an organization and is committed to its goals. Commitment has been shown to

be related to voluntary employee turnover. It is also seen as crucial to

individual performance in modern organizations that require greater self

management than in the past (Dessler, 1999). In the engagement literature,

16

several of the authors use terms such as commitment (Fleming, et al., 2005),

an amalgam of commitment, loyalty, productivity and ownership (Wellins &

Concelman, 2004), and loyalty (DDI).

1.9.3 Organizational citizenship behavior.

Organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) are discretionary behaviors that

are beyond formal obligations. They “lubricate the social machinery of the

organization, reducing friction and/or increasing efficiency” (Podsakoff &

MacKenzie, 1997). These desirable behaviors have been shown to be related

to job satisfaction and organizational commitment and to be related more to

work situation than dispositional factors (Podsakoff, MacKenzie & Bommer,

1996). OCB, an outcome of the attitudes of job satisfaction and organizational

commitment, is similar to the definitions in the engagement literature of being

respectful of and helpful to colleagues and willingness to go the extra mile

(Robinson, et al., 2004), or working longer hours, trying harder, accomplishing

more and speaking positively about the organization (Wellins & Concelman,

2004).

1.9.4 Job involvement.

Job involvement is the degree to which one is cognitively preoccupied with,

engaged in and concerned with one’s present job (Paullay, et al., 1994).

Pfeffer (1994) argues that individuals being immersed in their work are a

primary determinant of organizational effectiveness. Job involvement has

been shown to be related to OCBs and job performance (Diefendorff, Brown,

Kamin & Lord, 2002). In the employee engagement literature, Wellins and

Concelman (2004) use the term job ownership as a synonym of engagement.

1.10 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT- DIFFERENCE:

Employee engagement is one step ahead of employee satisfaction. Employee

is not only satisfied with the management decisions, salary and things but

also giving back to the organization in terms of commitment, dedication, and

loyalty.

17

Employee Engagement is the level of commitment an employee has towards

the organization. The primary behaviors of engaged employees are: speaking

positively about the organization to coworkers, potential employees and

customers, having a strong desire to be a member of the organization, and

exerting extra effort to contribute to the organization’s success.

A fully engaged employee is intellectually and emotionally bound with the

organization, gives 100 percent, feels passionately about its goals and is

committed to live by its values. This employee goes beyond the basic job

responsibility to delight the customers and drive the business forward.

Moreover, in times of diminishing loyalty, employee engagement is a powerful

retention strategy.

Research shows that engaged employees: perform better, put in extra efforts

to help get the job done, show a strong level of commitment to the

organization, and are more motivated and optimistic about their work goals.

Employers with engaged employees tend to experience low employee

turnover and more impressive business outcomes.

The difference between employee satisfaction, employee effectiveness and

employee engagement. Satisfaction, effectiveness, and engagement are all

inter-related in an upward progression.  Each item has different drivers, but

they build on one another to increase performance in the workplace.

Employees are satisfied with their job does not mean they are effective or

engaged. It is possible for an employee to be completely satisfied with his or

her job, and not fully engaged. To further complicate matters, an employee

can be both engaged and satisfied, yet not be effective. All three components

work together to create an environment where employees are highly

motivated and committed to giving their best performance.

18

1.11 FOCUS ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

Organizations are focusing on the meaning of employee engagement and

how to make employees more engaged. Employees feel engaged when they

find personal meaning and motivation in their work, receive positive

interpersonal support, and operate in an efficient work environment. What

brought engagement to the forefront and why is everyone interested in it?

Most likely, the tight economy has refocused attention on maximizing

employee output and making the most of organizational resources. When

organizations focus attention on their people, they are making an investment

in their most important resource. You can cut all the costs you want, but if you

neglect your people, cutting costs won’t make much of a difference.

Engagement is all about getting employees to “give it their all.” Some of the

most successful organizations are known for their unique work environments

in which employees are motivated to do their very best. These great places to

work have been recognized in such lists as Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to

Work For.

Satisfaction

Commitment

Engagement

Employee Research over Time

Pos

itiv

e C

orre

lati

on

Wit

h B

usin

ess

Per

form

ance

Lower

Higher

How much peoplelike it here

How much people want to improve business results

How much people want—and actually do—improve business results

ENGAGEMENT – THE EVOLUTIONARY JOURNEY

19

The concept of engagement is a natural evolution of past research on high-

involvement, empowerment, job motivation, organizational commitment, and

trust. All of these research streams focus on the perceptions and attitudes of

employees about the work environment. In some ways, there are variations

on the same fundamental issue. What predicts employees “giving their all?”

Obviously, all organizations want their employees to be engaged in their work.

Several standardized tools exist for assessing employee engagement and

providing feedback for making changes. These tools tend to have several

common goals and characteristics:

1.11.1 Create a simple and focused index of workplace engagement:

Many organizations are using very short, simple, and easy to use measures

that focus on the fundamentals of a great workplace. Instead of conducting

broad culture/climate surveys with 100 or more questions, organizations are

opting for a focused approach that measures fundamental qualities of the

workplace that likely will be important 10 years from now (e.g., feedback, trust,

cooperation).

1.11.2 Allow for benchmarking:

Most organizations want to know how they compare to other organizations.

Using a standard measure of engagement allows organizations to see how

they compare to other companies along a simple set of fundamental work

qualities.

1.11.3 Direct action:

Engagement measures tend to be very actionable. This means that the

organization can alter practices or policies to affect employees’ responses to

every item in the measure.

1.11.4 Show relationship to company performance:

Without a link to company performance or other critical outcomes, measures

of engagement have little value. The whole idea behind engagement is that it

20

leads to enhanced performance. The link to performance outcomes is a

necessary underlying assumption of all engagement measures.

1.12 ENGAGEMENT PREDICTS ORGANIZATIONAL SUCCESS:

Many studies have shown that investments in people (i.e., HR-related

practices) have a reliable impact on the performance of organizations. The

Bureau of Labor conducted a comprehensive review of more than 100 studies

and found that people practices have significant relationships to

improvements in productivity, satisfaction, and financial performance.

Research has shown that when engagement scores are high, employees are

more satisfied, less likely to leave the organization, and more productive.

Each organization is different and there are many factors that affect bottom-

line outcomes; however, engagement scores can serve as meaningful

predictors of long-term success. Some organizations use engagement scores

as lead measures in their HR scorecards. When an organization can show the

relationship between engagement scores and bottom-line outcomes,

everyone pays attention to the engagement index. Establishing this critical link

between people and performance helps HR professionals prove that people-

related interventions are a worthwhile investment.

1.12.1 Elements of Engagement

Some researches conclude that personal impact, focused work, and

interpersonal harmony comprise engagement. Each of these three

components has sub-components that further define the meaning of

engagement.

1.12.2 Personal Impact-Employees feel more engaged when they are able to

make a unique contribution, experience empowerment, and have

opportunities for personal growth. Past research (e.g., Conger and Kanugo,

1988; Thomas and Velthouse, 1990) concurs that issues such as the ability to

impact the work environment and making meaningful choices in the workplace

are critical components of employee empowerment. Development Dimensions

21

International’s (DDI) research on retaining talent (Bernthal and Wellins, 2000)

found that the perception of meaningful work is one of the most influential

factors determining employees’ willingness to stay with the organization.

1.12.3 Focused Work-Employees feel more engaged when they have clear

direction, performance accountability, and an efficient work environment.

Aside from the personal drive and motivation to make a contribution,

employees need to understand where to focus their efforts. Without a clear

strategy and direction from senior leadership, employees will waste their time

on the activities that do not make a difference for the organization’s success.

Additionally, even when direction is in place, employees must receive

feedback to ensure that they are on track and being held accountable for their

progress. In particular, employees need to feel that low performance is not

acceptable and that there are consequences for poor performance. Finally,

employees want to work in an environment that is efficient in terms of its time,

resources, and budget. Employees lose faith in the organization when they

see excessive waste. For Instance, employees become frustrated when they

are asked to operate without the necessary resources or waste time in

unnecessary meetings.

1.12.4 Interpersonal Harmony-Employees feel more engaged when they work

in a safe and cooperative environment. By safety, we mean that employee

trust one another and quickly resolve conflicts when they arise. Employees

want to be able to rely on each other and focus their attention on the tasks

that really matter. Conflict wastes time and energy and needs to be dealt with

quickly. Some researches also find that trust and interpersonal harmony is a

fundamental underlying principle in the best organizations. Employees also

need to cooperate to get the job done. Partnerships across departments and

within the work group ensure that employees stay informed and get the

support they need to do their jobs.

22

1.13 USE OF ENGAGEMENT:

Measurement of employee engagement can have many applications in the

organization. Earlier, it is mentioned that engagement could serve as a

general index of HR effectiveness in an HR scorecard. Also, engagement

measures serve as an easy way to benchmark the work climate against other

organizations.

Other uses include:

1.13.1 Needs Analysis-The fundamental issues measured in engagement

provide a quick index of what leaders and HR need to do to make things

better. In addition, items in engagement surveys tend to be very actionable.

This means that leaders or others in the organization can take action that will

affect the score on a single item.

1.13.2 Evaluation-Many learning and performance interventions are designed

to impact some aspect of engagement. When an engagement measure is

used as a pre-implementation baseline, the impact of the intervention can be

gauged by measuring post-implementation changes in engagement.

1.13.3 Climate Survey-Some organizations like to use engagement measures

as simple indexes of the workplace culture. While more extensive surveys are

valuable, sometimes it’s easier to focus attention on a few simple and proven

factors.

1.13.4 Leader or Department Feedback-Depending on the demographic

information collected when the engagement measure is implemented, one

can create breakout reports by department or leader. This means

departments and leaders can gain a better understanding of how engagement

in their groups differs from the rest of the organization. This information can

be used to create development plans or plans for larger-scale interventions.

Employee engagement is more than just the current HR 'buzzword'; it is

essential. In order for organizations to meet and surpass organizational

23

objectives, employees must be engaged. Research has proven that wholly

engaged employees exhibit,

Higher self-motivation.

Confidence to express new ideas.

Higher productivity and Morale.

Higher levels of customer approval and service quality.

Reliability.

Organizational loyalty; less employee turnover.

Lower absenteeism.

Increased passion for commitment to and alignment with the

organization’s strategies and goals.

Boosted business growth.

Employees become effective brand ambassadors for company.

1.14 PARAMETERS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

1.14.1 Career Growth & Development:

Career Development- Opportunities for Personal Development

Organizations with high levels of engagement provide employees with

opportunities to develop their abilities, learn new skills, acquire new

knowledge and realized their potential. When companies plan for the career

paths of their employees and invest in them in this way their people invest in

them.

Career Development – Effective Management of Talent

Career development influences engagement for employees and retaining the

most talented employees and providing opportunities for personal

development.

1.14.2 Organisation Planning & Leadership:

Leadership- Clarity of Company Values

24

Employees need to feel that the core values for which their companies stand

are unambiguous and clear.

Leadership – Respectful Treatment of Employees

Successful organizations show respect for each employee’s qualities and

contribution – regardless of their job level.

Leadership – Company’s Standards of Ethical Behaviour

A company’s ethical standards also lead to engagement of an individual

1.14.3 Employee role in the Organisation:

Empowerment

Employees want to be involved in decisions that affect their work. The

leaders of high engagement workplaces create a trustful and challenging

environment, in which employees are encouraged to dissent from the

prevailing orthodoxy and to input and innovate to move the organization

forward.

Image

How much employees are prepared to endorse the products and services

which their company provides its customers depends largely on their

perceptions of the quality of those goods and services. High levels of

employee engagement are inextricably linked with high levels of customer

engagement.

1.14.4 Rewards:

Pay and Benefits

The company should have a proper pay system so that the employees are

motivated to work in the organization. In order to boost his engagement levels

the employees should also be provided with certain benefits and

compensations.

Performance appraisal

Fair evaluation of an employee’s performance is an important criterion for

determining the level of employee engagement. The company which follows

25

an appropriate performance appraisal technique (which is transparent and not

biased) will have high levels of employee engagement.

1.14.5 Organisation Communication:

The company should follow the open door policy. There should be both

upward and downward communication with the use of appropriate

communication channels in the organization. If the employee is given a say in

the decision making and has the right to be heard by his boss than the

engagement levels are likely to be high.

1.14.6 Employees Relationship with Immediate Supervisor:

Co-operation

If the entire organization works together by helping each other i.e. all the

employees as well as the supervisors co-ordinate well than the employees will

be engaged.

Equal Opportunities and Fair Treatment

The employee engagement levels would be high if their bosses (superiors)

provide equal opportunities for growth and advancement to all the employees

1.14.7 Work Environment:

Family Friendliness

A person’s family life influences his wok life. When an employee realizes that

the organization is considering his family’s benefits also, he will have an

emotional attachment with the organization which leads to engagement.

Job Satisfaction

Only a satisfied employee can become an engaged employee. Therefore it is

very essential for an organization to see to it that the job given to the

employee matches his career goals which will make him enjoy his work and

he would ultimately be satisfied with his job.

26

Health and Safety

Research indicates that the engagement levels are low if the employee does

not feel secure while working. Therefore every organization should adopt

appropriate methods and systems for the health and safety of their

employees.

1.14.8 Training and Development:

The principal objective of training and development division is to make sure

the availability of a skilled and willing workforce to an organization. In addition

to that, there are four other objectives: Individual, Organizational, Functional,

and Societal.

Individual Objectives – help employees in achieving their personal goals,

which in turn, enhances the individual contribution to an organization.

Organizational Objectives – assist the organization with its primary objective

by bringing individual effectiveness.

Functional Objectives – maintain the department’s contribution at a level

suitable to the organization’s needs.

Societal Objectives – ensure that an organization is ethically and socially

responsible to the needs and challenges of the society.

CHAPTER 2

27

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 EVOLUTION OF THE CONCEPT:

‘Employee engagement’ is a relatively new term in HR literature and really

started to come to prominence from 2000 onwards. MelCrum Publishing

(2005) found that from a global survey of over 1,000 communication and HR

practitioners, 74% began to formally focus on the issue between 2000 and

2004. Having reviewed an extensive amount of literature, the commentary on

the evolution of employee engagement is summarized by the following points:

• It builds upon and goes further than ‘commitment’ and ‘motivation’ in the

management literature (Woodruff, 2006 as cited in CIPD, 2006)

• A review undertaken by Rafferty et al (2005) indicates that it originated from

consultancies and survey houses rather than academia.

• The level of interest it has generated indicates that it is more than a passing

management fad and a considerable amount of research and analysis has

been conducted in the last 10 years or so building up our understanding of

the term.

As pointed out in Rafferty et al (2005), the concept of employee engagement

has as its foundation, two well-researched precursors – employee

commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors.

2.1.1Commitment literature - Silverman (2004) discusses the different

directions of the study of employee organizational commitment which has

taken over the previous decade, noting that more recent research emphasises

the multidimensional nature of commitment that implies commitment cannot

be realised through one single human resource (HR) policy. In other words,

people are motivated by a range of factors, and these differ from person to

person. The earlier commitment literature, which discusses the various kinds

of commitment and the impacts of a committed workforce, lays the foundation

for understanding of engagement and the evolution of the concept. As is

discussed later, commitment and engagement are not considered to be one

and the same. Whilst commitment is an important element of

28

engagement, engagement is considered to be more than just employee

commitment.

Tamkin (2005) reviews commitment in the literature and highlights an early

model by Allen and Meyer (1990), which defines three types of commitment:

• Affective commitment – employees feel an emotional attachment

towards an organisation;

• Continuance commitment – the recognition of the costs involved in

leaving an organisation; and

• Normative commitment – the moral obligation to remain with an

organisation.

As noted by Tamkin (2005), not all of these forms of commitment are

positively associated with superior performance – employees who feel high

continuance commitment for whatever reason, but lower levels of affective

and normative commitment are unlikely to produce huge benefits for the

organisation.

The closest relationship with engagement is ‘affective’ commitment as

explained by Silverman (2004). This type of commitment emphasises the

satisfaction people get from their jobs and their colleagues, and the

willingness of employees to go beyond the call of duty for the good of the

organisation. It also goes some way towards capturing the two-way nature of

the engagement relationship, as employers are expected to provide a

supportive working environment. This point is expanded upon by Meere

(2005), who highlights that organisations must look beyond commitment and

strive to improve engagement, as it is engagement that defines employees’

willingness to go above and beyond designated job responsibilities to promote

the organisation’s success.

2.1.2 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) – The review of

ORGANISATION CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOUR literature by Barkworth (2004)

defines its key characteristic as behaviour that is discretionary or ‘extra-role’,

so that the employee has a choice over whether they perform such behaviour.

29

These behaviours include voluntarily helping of others, such as assisting

those who have fallen behind in their work, and identifying and stopping work

related problems in the first place. As these types of behaviour are not

normally part of the reward system, absence of such behaviours is therefore

not punishable by the organisation but performance of them should lead to

effective running of it. Over 30 different forms of OCBs have been identified

and defined and these have been classified by Podsakoff et al. (2000) in Bark

worth’s paper (2004) into seven themes:

• Helping behaviour – voluntarily helping others

• Sportsmanship – being able to carry on with a positive attitude in the face

of adversity and being willing to set aside personal interests for the good of

the group.

• Organisational loyalty – promoting the organisation to the outside world,

and staying committed to it, even when doing so could involve a personal

sacrifice.

• Organisational compliance – following organisational rules even when not

being monitored

• Individual initiative – demonstrating performance over and above what is

Expected.

• Civic virtue – macro-level interest in the organisation as a whole, such as a

loyal citizen would display towards their country

• Self-development – voluntarily improving one’s own knowledge, skills and

abilities in such a way as to be helpful to the organisation.

Organisation Citizenship Behaviour links very strongly to employee

engagement as it focuses on securing commitment and involvement which

lies outside contractual parameters – often referred to as the individual ‘going

the extra mile’. In terms of the impact of OCBs on organisational

effectiveness, three behaviours: helping behaviour, sportsmanship and civic

virtue, appear to lead to performance gains. The fact that helping behaviour

was not beneficial in all studies raises the issue of the context in which the

behaviours are to occur, as they will not be suitable in all situations.

2.2 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT DIFFERS :

30

It appears that engagement, although sharing strong characteristics with each

of these two concepts is about more than commitment and/or Organisation

Citizen Behaviour their own. Rafferty et al (2005) draw the distinction on the

basis that engagement is a two-way mutual process between the employee

and the organisation. Sharpley (2006) points out that it is important to

distinguish between motivation and engagement, as it is possible to be

motivated in one’s job without necessarily feeling an attachment to the

organisation. In Sharp ley’s (2006) definition of engagement there must be a

mutual feeling of support between the employee and the organisation.

Engagement refers to a multidimensional concept that involves some kind of

two-way interaction between the employee and the organisation. As the

literature notes, employees can be motivated and committed to their jobs,

without necessarily engaging with the overall strategies and objectives of the

organisation, or without really feeling the wider impact of their efforts.

Most of the literature employs a multidimensional approach to defining

employee engagement, where the definition encapsulates several elements

required in order to achieve ‘true engagement’. For Instance, the CIPD (2007)

defines employee engagement as a combination of commitment to the

organisation and its values plus a willingness to help colleagues. According to

this view, engagement is about more than job satisfaction and is a more

complex concept than motivation. Similarly, Schmidt (2004) defines

engagement as bringing satisfaction and commitment together. Whilst

satisfaction addresses more of an emotional or attitudinal element,

commitment brings in the motivational and physical elements. Schmidt (2004)

contends that while satisfaction and commitment are the two key elements of

engagement, neither on their own is enough to guarantee engagement.

Ellis and Sorenson (2007) point to the inconsistent way in which the term

engagement has been applied by business leaders and human resource (HR)

professionals over the last years. They highlight the inconsistency of using the

term to refer to attitudes or to employee perceptions of specific elements of

31

their work environment or benefits, which they feel have ‘little’ to do with

engagement. They endorse a two dimensional definition of engagement that

defines an engaged employee as one who

1) Knows what to do at work and

2) Wants to do the work.

It is their strong view that engagement should always defined and assessed

within the context of productivity and that the two elements of engagement

noted above are necessary for driving productivity.

Right Management (2006) defines true engagement as every person in the

organisation understanding and being committed to the success of the

business strategy, and that this goes beyond more than just simple job

satisfaction and incorporates aspects of commitment, pride, and advocacy

about the organisation’s products and brand. Whilst the onus is on the

organisation to manage communication effectively to involve employees and

align them with the organisation, this clearly requires input and feedback from

employees as well to make the process work.

The CIPD Annual Survey report (2006) defines engagement in terms of three

dimensions of employee engagement:

• Emotional engagement – being very involved emotionally in one’s work;

• Cognitive engagement – focusing very hard whilst at work; and

• Physical engagement – being willing to ‘go the extra mile’ for your employer.

The survey report states that the very engaged will go one-step further and

speak out as advocates of their organisation, in what they describe as a ‘win-

win’ situation for the employee and the employer. Some authors discuss the

varying degrees of engagement employees can experience. Meere (2005)

describes three levels of engagement:

Engaged - employees who work with passion and feel a profound

connection to their organisation. They drive innovation and move the

organisation forward;

Not engaged – employees who attend and participate at work but are

timeserving and put no passion or energy into their work; and

32

Disengaged – employees who are unhappy at work and who act out

their unhappiness at work. According to Meere (2005), these

employees undermine the work of their engaged colleagues on a

daily basis.

Buchanan (2004) describes the difference between rational commitment and

emotional commitment. Rational commitment results when a job serves

employees’ financial, developmental, or professional self-interest. In contrast,

emotional commitment, which has four times the power to affect performance

as its more pragmatic counterpart, arises when workers value, enjoy and

believe in what they do. According to the figures of the Corporate Leadership

Council quoted by Buchanan (2004), about 11% of the workforce are

classified as ‘true believers’ and demonstrate very high levels of both

commitment types; another 13% at the other end of the normal distribution

curve demonstrate little commitment and are classified as the ‘disaffected’.

In much of the literature, the definition of engagement is illustrated by the

behaviour of good practice employers and the characteristics of engaged

employees. Therefore, to summaries, Table highlights the following key

elements that are common across much of the literature. These have been

categorized in terms of what elements can be classified as drivers of

engagement and those that are the results of engagement and the

characteristics of an engaged workforce. The factors that determine

engagement are primarily driven by the organisation, and it is the extent to

which the organisation takes these issues on board and addresses them in an

effective manner than will influence engagement levels. Of course,

engagement is a two-way process and whilst engagement is organisation-led,

it requires inputs from the employee as well.

33

34

2.3 DRIVERS OF ENGAGEMENT

The drives of engagement are:

- A two-way relationship between the employer and employee.

- The importance of the individual being able to align themselves to the

products, services and values of the organisation.

- The ability of the organisation to communicate its vision, strategy,

objectives and values to its staff so that they are clearly understood.

- Management give staff sufficient ‘elbow room’ and autonomy to let

them fulfill their potential.

- The employer is highly effective at engaging in two-way communication

with its staff, in particular encouraging upward communication.

- Lastly, that management from the top to the bottom of the organisation

is ‘committed leaders’ and that the key role of the immediate line

manager/supervisor is recognized as one of the most important

conduits to achieving effective employee engagement.

Outcomes of engagement

- Staff is able to get ‘involved’ in the organisation and feel that they are

genuinely participating and contributing to its performance

- Staff has a pride in their organisation and endorses it as a place to

work and do business with to people outside the organisation

- Staff demonstrates real commitment to their job and the organisation

and

- Are prepared to ‘go the extra mile’.

Ipsos MORI (2006) has highlighted the need for organisations to improve the

way in which they manage change and develop leadership capability. Drawing

upon research data from over 200 of the UK’s leading organisations, an

analysis by sector shows that in many areas there is typically little difference

in employee attitudes. However, in core aspects of working life (ref. ‘job

positives’), public sector staff tends to be happier with:

• Job security

• Being paid fairly and their pay reflecting level of performance

• Training and development opportunities

35

• The feedback they receive from line managers

• Working hours.

As a result of the research, Ipsos MORI (2006) conclude that public sector

employees are more likely to feel that the work they do is interesting and, in

general, perceive a greater feeling of morale where they work. In contrast, the

public sector usually trails the private sector in two key areas: change

management and leadership capability (this is despite the fact that public

sector employees report a greater level of contact with senior management).

The Ipsos MORI (2006) research found that whilst around three-quarters of

employees in both sectors understand the need for change, there is a large

disparity in terms of those who support the need for change – with 75 per cent

of employees in the private sector supporting the need for change, compared

to 65 per cent in the public sector. Moreover, public sector employees are

significantly more likely to feel that some of the changes implemented are

unnecessary: they believe that “there is too much change for change’s sake.”

Thus, it is imperative that managers fully engage staff in understanding the

rationale for change, rather than just communicating the change to them, and

support employees through the change process. In terms of the more

practical aspects of change management, again public sector employees are

more critical. A quarter of private sector employees, compared to just 15 per

cent of public sector employees, believe that change is well managed in their

organisation. The Ipsos MORI (2006) research highlights other areas in which

public sector staffs are usually more critical than their private sector

counterparts:

- Receiving recognition for good performance and providing

opportunities for

- employees to let the organisation know how they feel about things that

affect them in their work

- Having adequate /sufficient facilities or resources to do their work

effectively

- The belief that their organisation puts customers first.

- Confidence that they are working for a successful organisation.

36

As a consequence, the public sector tends to trail the private sector in core

areas that can lead to enhanced employee engagement, such as clarity of

direction, effective communication and management.

The conclusion of this research is that the public sector needs to concentrate

more on how it manages change and develops leadership capability, to

contribute to delivering the Public Sector Reform Agenda effectively.

2.4 MODELS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

Employee engagement is often about employees ‘going the extra mile’ or

exerting ‘discretionary effort’. It was also discussed that many of the factors

that drive engagement are under the control of the organisation. However,

employees will place different emphasis on the extent to which they value

each of these factors in exchange for their discretionary effort. This examines

the models of engagement in the literature to determine what the key drivers

of engagement are, and the extent to which employees value these, and what

employees find connects them to the organisation, motivates them to perform

beyond expectations and compels them to actively promote the interests and

objectives of the organisation. Although the organisation has primary

responsibility for leading engagement, there are also secondary employee

and job specific factors which can affect levels of engagement. These are also

discussed to provide a more comprehensive picture of the factors that

determine engagement. The findings are presented under the following

headings:

•Modeling Engagement – a series of the most relevant interpretative

engagement models are presented.

• Role of Engagement in Organisational Outcomes – this section illustrates

the mechanisms through which engagement can impact on organisational

outcomes.

• Organisational Variations – an analysis of the extent to which engagement

varies between organisations.

• Employee Variations – an analysis of the extent to which engagement

varies between employees.

37

2.4.1 Modeling engagement

As highlighted by CIPD (2007) there is no definitive all-purpose list of

engagement drivers. There are many individual and organisational factors that

determine whether employees become engaged, and to what extent they

become engaged. This section highlights the models that illustrate these

factors and the importance that employees place on them in becoming

engaged. The approach to employee engagement, discussed by Robinson et

al (2004) stresses the importance of ‘feeling valued and involved’ as a key

driver of engagement. Within this umbrella of feeling valued and involved

there are a number of elements that have a varying influence on the extent to

which the employee will feel valued and involved and hence engaged. Figure

1, which is based on a diagnostic model in Robinson et al (2004), illustrates

the drivers of engagement suggested through a survey of over 10,000 NHS

employees. Robinson et al (2004) 2.4.1.1,state that this can be a useful

pointer to organisations towards those aspects of working life that require

serious attention if engagement levels are to be maintained or improved.

Figure 1

Robinson et al (2004) model of the drivers of employee engagement

Although tested within the NHS, the authors suggest that many of the drivers

of engagement will be common to all organisations. What is noted from the

38

model above is that some of these factors are what would be fundamental or

contractual requirements for the organisation (the ‘hygiene’ factors), such as

pay and benefits and health and safety, whereas others are the areas where

the organisation must ‘go the extra mile’ to ensure effective communication,

management and cooperation.

Penna (2007)2.4.1.2 presents a hierarchical model of engagement factors

(see figure 2), which illustrates the impact each level will have on the

attraction, engagement and retention of talent. They propose a model with

“meaning at work” at the apex, which they maintain is borne out by the

research carried out into meaning at work. In this context, Penna (2007)

defines meaning at work as the situation where a job brings fulfillment for the

employee, through the employee being valued, appreciated, having a sense

of belonging and similarity with the organisation and feel as if they are

contributing. In this model, as the hierarchy ascends and the organisation

successfully meets each of these engagement factors, the organisation

becomes more attractive to new potential employees and becomes more

engaging to its existing staff.

Figure 2

39

Penna (2007) model of hierarchy of engagement

Interestingly in this model the ‘hygiene’ factors appear at the foundation of the

model, indicating the nature of these factors as a necessary, but not sufficient,

building block upon which the organisation must further develop in order to

engage staff.

Worked by Schmidt (2004) 2.4.1.3 (figure 3) frames engagement within the

context of organisational health and Workplace Well-Being (WWB). (Schmidt

2004) defines Workplace Well-Being as “a holistic approach to creating high

performance organisations through establishing the right conditions to

generate high levels of employee engagement. This approach assumes that

achieving high levels of organisational performance depends on employees

who are strongly committed to achieving the goals of the organisation, and

who show this through their actions. This behavioral objective is influenced in

turn by levels of employee satisfaction, and by supportive, respectful and

healthy work environments. Engagement is defined by Schmidt (2004) as the

overarching label that brings employee satisfaction and commitment together.

This model highlights the importance of commitment to the job as driven by

job satisfaction, and also notes the importance of the supportive organisation.

By creating the right conditions to generate high levels of employee

engagement, the organisation can drive high performance – with high

performance being defined as the achievement of the overarching public

sector goal of advancing the public good. The model depicts the flow of

organisational dynamics that begins with recruitment and moves through

support for work, to workplace well-being, to engagement and finally to high

levels of organisational performance.

This model implies that the foundations of engagement lie in policies to recruit

and retain the right workforce (i.e. in terms of employing specific

competences, knowledge and experiences required for success as well as

diversity) and to promote health, safety, and wellbeing. Schmidt (2004) bases

the model on a variety of studies and writings, implicit in which is the notion

that it is workplace well-being that drives engagement. CIPD (2007a) concurs

40

with this view of the importance of well being, stating that engagement is

‘wholly consistent’ with an emphasis on employee well-being.

Figure 3

Schmidt (2004) Model of organisational dynamics in the public sector.

In Schmidt’s (2004) discussion, WORKPLACE WELL-BEING itself is driven by

commitment and job satisfaction, which in turn are determined by a number of

factors. It is a similar idea to the model presented by Robinson et al (2004)

where ‘feeling valued and involved’ was the key driver of engagement, but

in turn was influenced to a varying degree by a range of factors. As is the

case throughout much of the literature, Schmidt (2004) does not present a

definitive list of the drivers of commitment and satisfaction (as the drivers of

engagement) but reviews several studies and reports. Concentrating here on

the studies presented by Schmidt (2004) that appear to be based on a more

robust approach (e.g. regression analysis as opposed to theorising) the

following results are of interest.

41

2.4.1.4 WorkUSA (2000) - This survey used regression analysis to identify the

key factors affecting employee commitment:

• Trust in senior leadership

• Chance to use skills

• Competitiveness of rewards

• Job security

• Quality of company’s products and services

• Absence of workplace stress

• Honesty and integrity of company’s business conduct

2.4.1.5 ERIN Research - The Region of Peel carried out an employee survey

in 2002. Schmidt (2004) advocates the robustness of the results, from the

Canadian public sector, due to the use of ‘advanced statistical techniques’

and ‘excellent’ return rates on the survey of 72%. The survey identified job

satisfaction and commitment as the drivers for the engagement model, with

the following factors found to be important to each:

2.4.1.6 Job satisfaction:

• A career path that offers opportunities for advancement;

• Fair pay and benefits;

• The perception that the municipality offers good value to customers;

• A satisfactory work environment, as defined by:

- A reasonable workload;

- Good relations with immediate supervisor;

- Smoothly functioning of organisational dynamics;

- Good relationships with colleagues; and

- Effective internal communication.

2.4.1.7 Commitment:

• Job satisfaction;

• A career path that offers opportunities for advancement;

• A positive perception of senior management; and

• The perception that the municipality offers good value to customers.

42

The analysis of the survey found a correlation between satisfaction and

commitment of 0.57 suggesting that the two concepts are related but deserve

separate analysis. Further, what also emerges from these results is that

satisfaction is a driver of commitment, but not vice versa, as commitment does

not appear as a key factor in the analysis of what drives satisfaction.

2.4.1.8 Management and communication

The importance of good management and effective communication has been

highlighted as key vehicles through which employee engagement can be

implemented. As Robinson et al (2004) highlight, organisations must work to

engage employees and establish a two-way relationship between the

employer and employee. Michelman (2004) notes that the defining

contribution of great managers is that they boost the engagement levels of the

people who work for them. Michelman (2004) suggests that they achieve this

through concentrating on four core areas of managing people:

• Selection;

• Expectation setting;

• Motivation; and

• Development

2.4.1.9 Michelman (2004) points out that in leading engagement, great

managers will seek the right fit for a person’s talent, they work to see that

employees are rewarded for their performance and they Endeavour to ensure

that talent is developed through progressively more challenging and

meaningful assignments.

A research report into employee engagement by Melcrum Publishing (2005)

based on a global survey of over 1,000 multinationals concluded that from an

organisation’s point of view it is the senior executives that ‘set the tone’ of

engagement in an organisation, whatever the size. There are a number of

actions and strategies that senior management can make use of to inspire

engagement among employees and motivate them to go the extra mile. The

six top drivers of engagement from the senior management perspective were

found to be:

43

• Communicating a clear vision of the future.

• Building trust in the organisation.

• Involving employees in decision making that will affect them.

• Demonstrating commitment to the organization’s values.

• Being seen to respond to feedback.

• Demonstrating genuine commitment to employee’s well being.

The Melcrum Publishing (2005) 2.4.1.10 report also examined the role of line

managers in encouraging engagement. In this regard, the survey results imply

that ‘creating a climate of open communication’ is the single most

important action for line managers in affecting levels of employee

engagement, with 60% of those surveyed claiming it is the most important

element.

Regarding the importance of communication, Moorcroft (2006) discusses the

restructuring that took place at the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) in 2004. It

was noted at that time that there was a need to engage rather than inform

employees and thus better align their performance with the organization’s

vision and business goals. Formerly, communication strategies had focused

on informing employees and creating awareness. However, the company in

order to engage employees (and thus generate desired behaviours) that

would help create outcomes (measurable effects) in support of the

organisation’s objectives designed a new strategy.

The strategy has four key objectives:

i) Help employees develop a better understanding of how what they do relates

to the organisation’s vision, strategies and goals;

ii) Create a more dynamic and interactive communication environment that

involves employees in thinking about and understanding how they can

influence business results;

iii) Ensure employees are getting the information they need to help frame and

guide their day-to-day decisions; and

iv) Promote and recognize the desired behaviours and outcomes in

communication. This strategy is illustrated by RBC in the following model:

44

Figure 4 RBC’s new model of employee communication

Moorcroft (2006) notes that the ‘old’ model was focused on developing tactics

and methods by which to inform employees, or create awareness, of company

news and objectives. However, the new model (see figure 4) is based on

engaging employees in the communication process in order to achieve the

desired outcomes and thus build the business value. This is achieved by

helping employees have a better idea of how what they do impacts upon the

organisation and by promoting behaviours that help achieve organisational

objectives. Moorcroft (2006) reports that the changes to employee

communications are beginning to show solid results, with employee alignment

and engagement scores improving. Interestingly, the communication budget

has actually been reduced at the same time, illustrating that a more focused

and thought through strategy can result in better value for money.

2.5 The role of engagement in organisational outcomes:

Heintzman and Marson (2006) use the private sector service-profit chain

model as a basis for producing a public sector equivalent (see figure 5). They

base the model on research carried out in Canada on what the top public

sector challenges are, namely;

• Human resource modernization;

• Service improvement; and

45

• Improving the public’s trust in public institutions.

Heintzman and Marson (2006) point out that the private sector has, for over a

decade, documented the links between employee engagement and client

satisfaction, and between client satisfaction and bottom line financial results.

The authors note that the third element (the bottom line) cannot be transferred

directly to the public sector but based on research on the link between public

service outcomes and the public’s rating of overall government performance,

they suggest the following public service value chain:

Figure 5: Heintzman and Marson’s (2006) public sector value chain

Whilst Heintzman and Marson (2006) state that work is still underway to

document the drivers of employee engagement with respect to this model

they state that possible candidates (based on secondary research quoted

within the paper) are:

• Support for the goals and mandate of the organisation;

• Effective leadership and management;

• Supportive colleagues and work unit;

• Tools, authority and independence to do the job;

• Career progress and development; and

• Workload.

Heintzman and Marson (2006) cite emerging Canadian evidence that

supports this concept. They suggest that by understanding the drivers of

engagement and the link between engagement and performance of the

institution, this tool can be used across public sector management to make

significant improvements in employees’ work and in the overall performance

and perception.

46

A model produced by the CIPD (2006c) and presented in the organisation’s

Employee Attitudes and Engagement Survey’ of 2006, brings various

elements of employee engagement together in one overarching model (figure

6). This formed the basis of the survey. The model, which illustrates the

linkages and important factors in each of these elements, is provided below,

with arrows indicating directions of influence:

Figure 6: The CIPD (2006) model of employee engagement model

Individual factors are those such as gender, age, ethnicity and disability.

Working life describes factors such as occupation, hours of work and pay, as

well as important issues such as bullying or workplace harassment.

Management, leadership and communication refers to how employees view

their managers and leaders, how much opportunity they have to participate in

organisational decision making and levels of trust. As CIPD (2006c) highlights,

these factors have found in research to be very important in determining

levels of engagement. This is the area where managers can have an

important influence.

Attitudes to work refer to employees’ perceptions of their jobs and include

levels of well-being, satisfaction, enthusiasm, commitment, and loyalty. It is

important to note here the two-way interaction in this model between attitudes

to work and engagement. Whilst satisfaction, commitment, stress and loyalty

factors feed into levels of engagement, it follows from the model that

47

organisations that successfully engage their employees will engender greater

levels of job satisfaction and loyalty, for Instance.

The engagement box itself refers to the CIPD’s (2006c) three types of

engagement -cognitive, emotional and physical. Finally, in the model above,

engagement and attitudes to work lead to outcomes for the organisation, in

terms of individual performance, intent to quit and absence levels. The model

was used by CIPD in their annual attitude and engagement survey, with the

finding that there is in fact a lot that managers and leaders can do to drive up

engagement. Levels of trust and confidence in senior management and line

managers were found to be ‘disappointingly low’ in the survey, however CIPD

(2006) cites this as an opportunity for managers to evaluate how their own

organisation compares with the national sample and to consider how best to

harness the engagement levels of their own workforce.

2.6 ORGANISATIONAL VARIATIONS

The literature has highlighted that the primary responsibility for leading

engagement, and influence over the factors that determine engagement, lies

with the organisation. Whilst no evidence of difference has been found

between the dynamics of engagement between the private and public sectors,

what the literature does reveal is that the variations within sectors are in fact

far more significant. In short, it appears that there is a clear distinction

between leading edge organisations that are strong in employee engagement

and the majority that are either ignorant of the subject or which are failing to

address the matter effectively, irrespective of whether they are in the public or

private sector. This section highlights some Instances of this through case

study evidence. The literature identified a number of case studies of good

practice in both the public and private sectors that were held up as exemplars

for others to follow. Instances, which demonstrate what can be achieved in

the public sector, include Cambridgeshire County Council and Rotherham

Metropolitan Borough Council – see case study profiles below:

48

CAMBRIDGESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL –CASE STUDY

Profile: 18,000 staff & turnover of £550m

Approach: it has had a formal people strategy since 2001 – it is clear about

developing the organisation, having a single culture, employee development

and creative ways to reward good performance. In 2005 the Institute for

Employment Studies (IES) ran a culture audit out of which the ‘Inspire

Project’ was born – the objective being to change the way people work and

communicate. A new framework defining 17 behaviours was rolled out with

the assistance of the Hay Group. The project included work on leadership

development, with managers – including the Chief Executive – receiving 360-

degree appraisals and team-building workshops. It has also led to a new

customer service charter and employee charter. The latter outlines not only

what the Council can expect from its employees, but also what they can

expect in return – “it is the psychological

contract made explicit”.

Impact: in HR benchmarks the Council has top quartile performance including

absence management, and bottom quartile costs for HR service delivery. HR

even sells its best practice to other public-sector organisations to generate

revenue. The staff survey results are very strong:

85% of employees thought they were doing a worthwhile job

84% said that managers listened to their ideas

90% felt they had the chance to give feedback during appraisals; and

71% said they had enough opportunities to raise issues of importance

“We are not a traditional authority – we seem to have more ways to get

messages out and actively listen to people than you see in most

organisations.”

“If you don’t start with your workforce, how can you reach the public?”

“18,000 ambassadors are better than 18,000 assassins.”

49

ROTHERHAM METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL –CASE STUDY

Profile: 13,500 staff

Historic Performance: in 2002 the Council was in the ‘doldrums’, with 1 star

and rated as ‘weak’ in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment. Only

24% of staff rated morale as ‘high’.

Approach: Rotherham’s ‘Exchange Programme’ was runner up in the

‘Improving Business Performance Through Engaging Staff’ category of the

CIPD People Management Awards. A representative ‘Reach-in’ panel that

gives detailed feedback and quarterly focus groups to handle hot topics

supplemented conventional methods such as staff surveys and an employee

suggestion scheme. Through effective promotion the number of employee

suggestions increased six fold from 50 per year to 300. “Letting people know

the outcomes of

their suggestion was the most important part of the process.” The Council’s

wider mission to motivate and inspire is encapsulated in their HEART

approach:

• Help each other learn and develop

• Empower through open communication

• Appreciate and respect others

• Recognise and acknowledge contributions

• Try new ideas and initiatives.

Impact:

Staff turnover is down from 18% to 9%

Average absence is down from 13.8 days to 9.2 days

Rotherham is now a three star council and rated as ‘strongly improving’.

65% of staff responded that they are happy at work.

“Happy employees are more likely to come to work.”

“We know staffs feel valued, and confident that they are having an input into

our success as a council.”

“The culture has changed from one that was progressing slowly to one that

wants to achieve, and is achieving results.”

50

2.7 EMPLOYEE VARIATIONS

The final variable affecting employee engagement relates to employees

themselves. A number of studies have produced quantitative research

findings that demonstrate the impact biographical and job characteristics can

have on employee engagement. One of the most in-depth was conducted by

the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) (as analyzed by Robinson et al

2004) which analyzed attitude survey data for 2003 from 14 organisations in

the NHS (>10,000 completed questionnaires). The key findings were:

Biographical characteristics:

Gender – the difference in engagement scores between men and women was

not significant (although note that some surveys (find that females are

generally more engaged than males – this difference may be due to the fact

that the NHS study surveys across employees within the same organisation,

whilst the CIPD survey cuts across a wide variety of industries and

organisations).

Age – engagement levels go down slightly as employees get older – until they

reach the oldest group, 60 and over, where the highest engagement levels of

all are displayed. The high level of engagement levels expressed by

experienced employees, who may be considered to be approaching the end

of their working lives, suggests an untapped source of potential in many

organisations.

Work-life balance – those in their 40s and 50s have the highest levels of

workplace stress and are likely to find it difficult to balance work and home life.

Robinson et al (2004) therefore suggest that attention to family friendly

policies could increase the engagement levels for this group.

Caring responsibilities – the need for a family-friendly approach and greater

emphasis on work-life balance is further underlined by the fact that employees

51

with caring responsibilities for children have significantly lower engagement

levels than those who have no caring responsibilities.

Gender – women were found, in general, to be more engaged than men, but

they also tend to be doing different kinds of jobs. Women are more satisfied

with their work and hold more positive views of their senior management team

than do men. They are more loyal to their organisation as an employer and

report higher levels of loyalty to their customers and clients than men. This is

in contrast to the NHS survey result conducted by IES and analyzed by

Robinson et al (2004), where it was found that there was no discernable

difference between engagement levels between men and women. As

discussed above this may be due to the fact that the NHS study surveyed

employees across the same organisation whilst CIPD (2006c) cut across a

range of different industries and organisations. This may suggest that males

and females are responding in a similar fashion to the same NHS

environment but that in general differences in male/female engagement may

be due to participation in different occupations and industries.

Age – workers aged 55+ are more engaged with their work than younger

employees, and they are also happier with their work-life balance, working

shorter hours than others. Employees aged less than 35 are significantly less

engaged with their work than older workers. Again this is contrast to the NHS

results where it was found that engagement levels go down as age increases,

although both surveys find that workers in the 55+ or 60+ bracket are more

engaged.

Disability – employees with a disability are less engaged due to a range of

negative factors including: bullying and harassment, not being listened to, the

stress of work, a feeling of less control over their work, and higher levels of

anxiety.

Managers – they find their work more important and more meaningful than

non managers do. Their responses on communication and involvement are

much more positive than those of non-managers, and managers feel that they

52

have more support and recognition and are listened to more than non-

managers are.

Flexible contracts – some surprisingly strong differences were found

between those working on a flexible contract (e.g. flexible hours, term time

contracts, home working etc.) and other workers. Those on flexible contracts

tend to be more emotionally engaged, more satisfied with their work, more

likely to speak positively about their organisation and least likely to quit than

those not employed on flexible contracts. However, it is particularly important

to point out that demographic variables should not be seen in isolation as

predictors of performance or engagement. CIPD (2006c) stresses the

following:

“…what we have found is that good management practice and a conducive

working environment can lead to high levels of engagement and performance

amongst all groups of workers.”

CIPD (2006c) also note the following regarding job characteristics:

• Job group – the nature of the job makes a big difference to engagement

levels. In general, managers and professionals have higher levels of

engagement than do their colleagues in supporting roles.

• Working pattern/hours – full-timers are significantly more engaged than

part-timers, while employees who workdays are more engaged than their

colleagues on shifts or on a rota. This suggests that employers need to work

harder with people who are not necessarily at work during ‘standard’ working

times – to ensure that they receive communications, are managed effectively,

and have opportunities to grow and develop in their jobs.

• Length of service – engagement levels go down as length of service

increases – an indication to employers that they need to ensure that longer-

serving employees continue to be exposed to new and interesting challenges.

Summary and key findings:

The key points that emerge from an examination of the models of

engagement are:

53

• There is no one-size fits all definitive explanation of what drives

engagement. Each of the models and research studies discussed presented a

range of different factors and placed varying importance on each. What can

be concluded is that the organisation first has the power of influence over a

range of factors (contractual and extra-contractual) and employees place a

varying degree of importance on these.

• Feeling valued and involved is the key to the Robinson et al (2004) model of

engagement, although other factors such as training and development,

communication and job satisfaction are important in determining the extent to

which employees feel valued and hence engaged.

• The Penna (2007) model of engagement noted that pay and benefits were at

the foundation of the model but ranked lowest on the extent to which they

would retain staff if other factors were lacking. In that model value and

meaning at work are at the apex, with leadership and learning and

development also cited as important factors in driving engagement from the

employee’s point of view.

• The RBC model of communication was also highlighted, and it was noted

that it succeeded as it strived to engage employees rather than just inform.

The organisation realised that the previous model of informing employees,

rather than engaging them, was not helping to promote the ‘line of sight’ from

employee actions to the overall objectives and outcomes for the organisation.

This model highlights an important element of engagement – that

communication is more effective as a two-way process that involves the

employee, as opposed to merely presenting them with information.

• Management and communication were highlighted in particular in several

models (i.e. Robinson et al (2004) and Penna (2007)) as being key

organisational drivers of engagement. Here it was found that promoting a

clear vision of the future, being seen to respond to feedback and

demonstrating a genuine commitment to the employees’ well-being are all-

important actions at an organisational/managerial level.

• Several models that illustrate the overall impact of engagement and the

mechanisms through which factors feed into engagement and how in turn

engagement affects the overall organisational outcomes were also presented.

What Schmidt (2004) points out as the overarching goal of public

54

organisations – advancing the greater public good – can be affected by

engagement levels through an overall mechanism that involves various

elements from the ‘right’ workforce through workplace well-being,

engagement, organisational performance and finally advancing the public

good.

• CIPD (2006c) model of engagement was presented, which presents an

overall picture of the place of engagement within a wider scope of individual

factors, aspects of working life, management, attitudes to work and outcomes

for the organisation. This demonstrates that engagement should not be

considered in isolation, and these other factors should be taken on board

when measuring engagement and considering engagement strategies.

• The effect of the models was not found in the literature to vary across public

and private sectors, rather organisational characteristics within either sector

that determines engagement.

• Secondary to the organisational lead in driving engagement are several

demographic and job-related factors that highlight variations in engagement. It

was noted from several studies that those in their 40s and 50s have the

highest levels of workplace stress and are most likely to find it difficult to

achieve a work/home life balance. Further, those with caring responsibilities

for children are less likely to be engaged. These results tie in with the

Robinson et al (2004) model, which highlighted family friendly policies as an

important organisational driver of engagement.

2.8 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT:

Belief in engagement

From the literature, review it is clear that the overriding sentiment throughout

the leading texts is very positive with regard to the impact employee

engagement has on organisational performance. This is illustrated by some of

the key statements that emerged from the literature

Extent of engagement

The research findings which are emerging suggests that only a small

proportion of employees can be described as engaged, with a far greater

55

proportion of respondents to surveys reportedly either not engaged or

disengaged. For Instance, a Gallup survey of 2004 (carried out on US

employees, as reported in Meere (2005)) found that nearly one fifth of

employees were disengaged and over half ‘not engaged’: see Table 1. Meere

(2005) also provides statistics relating to the UK, which show a similar trend:

see Table 2.

Literature view on impact of engagement

Table 1 Results of US Gallup poll of employee engagement

56

Table 2 Results of UK Gallup poll of employee engagement

The CIPD (2006c) Employee Attitude and Engagement Survey 2006 find

slightly higher results than suggested by the statistics above. Covering 2,000

workers across the public and private sectors in the UK, the survey finds that

35% of employees are actively engaged with their work. However, care needs

to be taken when discussing what workers are engaged to. Robinson et al

(2004) highlights that an interesting finding in the NHS survey was that the

professionals surveyed often felt a higher level of loyalty to their work (or to

their patients) than to the organisation as such. Robinson et al notes that to

some extent this may not matter to the organisation if these individuals

perform in a manner that achieves the objectives of the organisation anyway.

However, where engagement with the organisation will clearly be important is

in regards to organisational level changes in strategy for Instance. In these

instances organisations seek to have employees aligned with the overall

strategy and perform their work to that end.

Impact of engagement

The models presented, illustrated the mechanism by which employee

engagement can feed into overall organisational performance. It follows that if

employees are not engaged with the overall strategies and objectives of an

organisation then their day-today activities will not be focused on achieving

these objectives. This section reviews evidence in the literature to determine

the extent to which these effects can be described and quantified.

Productivity and organisational performance

The Corporate Leadership Council (CLC) (2004) completed a study of

engagement levels of over 50,000 employees across the globe and found that

those employees who are most committed:

57

• Perform 20% better, which CLC (2004) claims infers that moving from low to

high engagement levels will induce an increase in employee performance of

20 percentile points; and

• Are 87% less likely to leave the organisation, which CLC (2004) state

indicates the significance of engagement to organisational performance.

On the other hand, in reporting on the costs of employee disengagement,

Meere (2005) discusses a survey carried out by ISR on 360,000 employees

from 41 companies in the world’s 10 largest economies and finds that in

companies with low engagement both operating margin and net profit margins

reduced over a three year period, whilst in companies with high levels of

engagement both these measures increased over the same time period.

Although this survey was based on private sector companies and measured

organisational performance through financial indicators, the implications for an

organisation, private or public are the same – the difference between low and

high engagement can be real and substantial. The models demonstrated the

mechanisms through which low engagement can impact upon organisational

performance, however that performance is defined and measured.

Melcrum Publishing (2005) also report that in the US, Gallup estimates that

disengaged workers cost US business between $270 and $343 billion per

year due to low productivity. Meere (2005) also reports evidence that close to

one-third of CEOs identified engaging employees in the company’s vision,

values and goals, as one of the three factors most important to their

organisation’s success.

Customer outcomes

Customer focus is one organisational objective that does apply across both

the private and public sectors, although it may manifest itself in a slightly

different form. In this regard, a survey by Right Management (2006) found that

70% of engaged employees indicated they had a good understanding of how

to meet customer needs, whilst only 17% of non-engaged employees scored

high on this measure. As definitions of engagement would suggest, the

58

engaged employees were found to have a better understanding of how their

actions contributed to the organisation’s overall customer focus.

Employee retention

Similarly, employee retention is an issue for the private and public sector

alike. Right Management (2006) found that 75% of engaged employees

planned to stay with the organisation for at least five years, whilst only 44% of

non-engaged employees planned to stay. On this issue Towers Perrin (2003)

also found that a highly engaged workforce is a more stable workforce – in

their survey two thirds of highly engaged employees had no plans to leave

their jobs versus just 12% of the disengaged. According to Towers Perrin

(2003), whilst high engagement does not guarantee retention, it does increase

the chances of retaining the very people who are probably going to be most

attractive in a competitive labour market. With regard to retention, Towers

Perrin (2003) highlights an important impact related to the disengaged. Whilst

organisations can potentially lose key employees through not successfully

engaging them, there is also a risk to the organisation from the disengaged

who are not actively looking for other employment and continue in their

current employment but are disaffected and unproductive. Towers Perrin

(2003) note that retaining the disengaged can have as serious consequences

for performance as losing the highly engaged. The literature tends to focus on

identifying the disengaged and outlining the potential negative impacts the

disengaged can have on other employees and overall organisational

performance. This may represent a significant gap in the literature where

further discussion and research could perhaps be undertaken on how to reach

the most disengaged, the extent to which it is worth trying to reach the most

disengaged, and how the costs of these interventions weigh against any

potential benefits of engaging these members of staff.

Meaning at work

Penna (2007) presents the results of research carried out in 2005 on 1,765

British employees to identify what creates meaning at work for UK employees,

the effectiveness of employers in creating meaning and what an employer

who creates meaning can reasonable expect in return. Although not explicitly

59

referencing ‘engagement’ many of the elements examined in this research are

important components of the definitions of engagement. ‘Meaning at work’ as

referred to by Penna (2007) is the vehicle through which employers and

employees can be brought closer together to the benefit of both. The headline

result is that organisations that devote resources towards creating meaning at

work can anticipate increased motivation, loyalty, pride, and productivity. On

the

other hand, a proportion of respondents did not experience meaning at work

and as a result 15% of employees surveyed would not recommend their

organisation as a place to work and 7% would actively discourage others from

joining. As the report highlights, pride taken in working for an employer, and

willingness of employees to recommend their employer as a place to work to

friends, are excellent barometers of engagement.

Advocacy of the organisation

As mentioned, CIPD (2006c) classifies three types of engagement (cognitive,

emotional and physical) but states that engaged employees may also go one

step further and act as advocates of their organisation. Advocacy can be in

terms of recommending the organisation as a place to work, or in terms of

believing in and recommending the products and services of the organisation.

An interesting result that came out of the CIPD’s annual employee attitudes

and engagement survey (CIPD 2006c) is that public sector workers are more

critical of their organisation than their private sector counterparts. The survey

concludes that employees who are more engaged are more likely to be

advocates of the organisation. In the survey 37% of employees could be

described as ‘Champions’ who willingly promote the organisation as an

employer (potentially reducing recruitment costs by

recommending/introducing key personnel) and its products/services, which in

effect is free marketing and enhances the public image of the organisation.

Melcrum Publishing (2005) reports similar results and from their survey finds

that only 3% of disengaged employees would advocate the organisation as a

place to work, compared to 67% of engaged employees. Penna (2007)

included similar measures in its ‘meaning at work’ research report, and finds

60

that nearly a quarter of those surveyed would not recommend their

organisation as a place to work. The report also notes a small hardcore of

‘corporate terrorists’ – the most disengaged - would actively discourage

friends from joining their current organisation.

Organisational climate

CIPD (2006a) discusses the impact that engagement has on the sense of

community within an organisation. Whilst managerial actions are important,

the results of the CIPD survey (CIPD 2006c) suggest that relationships among

fellow workers are important in contributing towards job satisfaction. In turn,

the impact of the organisational climate and the extent to which engagement

is embedded in the organisation (or the individual team or department) is

critical for employees in their willingness to stay working with their employer

and the extent to which they advocate their organisation. This “affective

engagement” is found to be strongly related to positive discretionary

behaviour – or “going the extra mile”.

Cost of engagement

Much of the literature reviewed does not raise the issue of cost alongside the

benefits. One case study that does however is that of Cambridgeshire County

Council, where it is questioned whether the outcomes achieved are worth the

inevitable high cost of such a dedicated and comprehensive engagement

scheme. In this case, Cambridgeshire County Council reported that the

benefits do make the engagement measures worthwhile as there are time

savings that result from a smoother process for implementing change and

new policies. HR benchmarks suggest that the Council has the top quartile

performance in terms of absence, coupled with bottom quartile results for HR

delivery costs. A 2004 staff survey revealed that 85% of employees thought

they were doing a worthwhile job, 85% said managers listened to their ideas,

and 71% said they had enough opportunities to raise issues of importance. All

of these results were up on the previous year, some as much as 15%.

Importance of engagement:

61

Therefore between the impacts that engagement can have upon an

organisation and the relatively widespread trends of disengagement found in

various employee surveys, it is clear that engagement has become an

important topic in recent years. Table 3 highlights the commitment to

employee engagement by a selection of leading players from both the public

and private sectors and the underpinning rationale for their uptake of this new

approach. They have recognised the importance of employee engagement

and have acted accordingly to leverage the organisational benefits such an

approach can deliver. The information is presented via case study extracts.

CIPD (2007a) suggests that employers want employees who will ‘go the extra

mile’, whilst employees want worthwhile jobs. Where these objectives meet

there is a ‘win-win’ situation where organisations can meet their needs and

the needs of their employees. According to the CIPD (2007a), what

organisations are looking for to bridge these goals in practice is an engaged

workforce. The models demonstrated the way in which this process can work

and the role that engagement plays in organisational outcomes.

As discussed, the impact of disengagement can have measurable effects

upon performance, not only in quantitative terms of reduced productivity,

reduced profitability, loss of customer satisfaction and/or employee turnover,

but also upon the general climate of the organisation and other employees.

With regards to the public sector, it is illustrated through a model based on

Canadian research (Heintzman and Marson, 2006) that engagement can

have a bearing on the performance of public institutions and the public’s

perceptions and levels of trust in those organisations. Thus the importance of

engagement can be demonstrated in terms of the effect it is found to have

upon improving the welfare of the individual, other employees and ultimately

on organisational performance, however it may be measured. Increasing

recognition of these very real effects has brought the subject to the fore for

many organisations.

62

Table 3 Importance of Employee Engagement – case study

63

Summary and key findings

This set out to review the evidence regarding the impact of employee

engagement. It began by looking at the general sentiment throughout the

literature and concluded that there is an overriding belief in the literature that

employee engagement has measurable and significant effects on the

organisation’s success. The review of the evidence then looked at number of

areas and found that:

• The survey evidence tells us that the majority of the workforce in leading

economies is not engaged;

• Engaged employees perform 20% better (CLC 2004);

•Organisations with disengaged employees underperform against

organisations with engaged employees (Meere 2005), with the costs of

disengagement through lost productivity costing US businesses up to $343bn

annually (Gallup results discussed in Melcrum Publishing 2005);

• 70% of engaged employees have a good understanding of how to meet

customer needs as opposed to only 17% of disengaged employees (Right

Management 2006);

• Organisations not only lose key personnel by failing to engage them but they

can also be harboring a large body of unproductive disengaged staff who

have no intention of leaving;

• Employers who achieve meaning at work for their employees can expect

increased motivation, pride and productivity;

• Engaged employees are more likely to advocate the organisation as a place

to work and actively promote its products and services;

• There is an identifiable gap in the literature through the exclusion of the

costs of engagement alongside the discussions of the benefits. The case

study of Cambridgeshire County Council did raise the issue that intensive

engagement programmes incur costs, however in that case they felt the cost

was justified. Nevertheless, the benefits discussed here do need to be read in

the context of an absence of counterbalancing arguments and evidence

surrounding the costs of running engagement schemes; and

• Further, the literature does not discuss in detail how organisations should

treat the most disengaged and because costs or cost-benefit analyses are not

64

discussed, there is no discussion of how far organisations should go to try to

engender engagement among the disengaged, or what level of engagement

is optimal for different organisations.

The increasing interest and importance attached to employee engagement by

organisations are evident through:

• The potential business benefits in terms of staff attraction, retention and

performance; improved communication and service delivery to customers; and

the bottom-line benefits these impacts confer in terms of sales and profits; and

• The extent to which major employers are taking notice of the potential

impacts that engagement and disengagement can have on the ability of the

organisation to achieve its objectives. Several major players such as

Microsoft, the Royal Bank of Scotland and the BBC are actively addressing

engagement within their

organisations.

2.9 MEASUREMENT AND MONITORING OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

The research findings discussed imply that levels of engagement within an

organisation can have substantial and measurable impacts upon the outputs

of the organisation, whether that output is profit, productivity, customer/public

satisfaction, achievement of strategies and objectives, or successful

implementation of reform. As highlighted by Robinson et al (2004) it makes

sense for organisations to monitor the engagement levels of employees and

to take action to increase these if necessary. CIPD (2007a) also highlights the

importance of monitoring levels of employee engagement as a key element in

managing the organisation’s human capital. This explores methods the

literature suggests are good practice regarding how employee engagement

can be measured. The chapter is structured under the following sections:

• Measurement at the recruitment stage

• Measurement among existing employees

• Monitoring engagement.

65

Measurement at the recruitment stage

The Schmidt (2004) model on the organisational dynamics of the public sector

noted that the foundation of the model on which workplace well-being,

employee engagement and ultimately organisational performance and the

furtherance of the public good was based, was recruiting and retaining the

right workforce.

Penna (2007) recommends that employers don’t just hire for competence but

hire for attitude and alignment with the organisation’s values. On this basis,

McGee (2006) discusses research by Development Dimensions International

(DDI) which involved over 4,000 employees in a variety of industries and

revealed six characteristics that predict the likelihood of individuals becoming

engaged employees:

• Adaptability;

• Passion for work;

• Emotional maturity;

• Positive disposition;

• Self-efficacy; and

• Achievement orientation.

According to the research, it is these factors that can help to predict which

candidates will perform effectively, derive satisfaction from what they do and

become engaged. McGee (2006) purports that taking time to screen

applicants for ‘engagement readinesses will yield a far greater return in the

medium term than hiring solely for skills and knowledge. It is worth noting the

Schmidt (2004) model highlighted that recruiting the ‘right’ workforce is a

requisite foundation to achieving outcomes further up in the model. However,

the literature and future research could perhaps be more focused on exploring

the links between aspects of the recruitment process and levels of

engagement in organisations.

Measurement among existing employees

There is an onus on the organisation to retain key staff once they are

recruited. discussed the role of the organisation in effecting improvements in

levels of engagement and discussed the type of actions organisations can

66

take to encourage engagement. Ellis and Sorenson (2007) highlight that the

first step in improving employee engagement is to adopt a definition and

assess current levels of employee engagement. In order to help identify

whether the organisation has an engagement problem, they suggest a

diagnostic checklist in which a positive answer to any of the following Instance

statements indicates that engagement levels could be improved upon in the

organisation:

• People often come to meetings and nod in agreement but limited to no

progress is made.

• Superior performance is often undefined, unrecognised and/or unrewarded.

• There is a lack of information sharing across business units, and a lack of

collaboration toward common goals and results.

• Employees feel far removed from the results of the business and have little

understanding of how they can contribute towards the strategy.

• People feel disconnected from the organisation’s customers.

Once it is identified that an engagement problem exists, the next step is to

quantify the extent of engagement in the organisation and the amount and

types of action required. It is important to identify how engagement levels

among the existing staff body can be measured. In the literature, this usually

takes the form of some sort of qualitative assessment across a range of

factors, usually in the form of a staff survey. This section discusses several

survey designs as found in the literature and makes an assessment of the key

areas which form the basis for benchmarking and measuring employee

engagement.

Employee Surveys

CIPD (2007a) notes that the first step towards building an engaged workforce

is to get a measure of employee attitudes, and that most large employers in

the private and public sector conduct regular employee attitude surveys.

These can then be used to identify areas in need of improvement.

Robinson et al (2004) notes that trying to get a measure of engagement is

‘challenging’, given the range of complex factors being assessed. The report

notes the use of the attitude survey as a useful tool for collecting, measuring

67

and analysing employee opinions. The report also notes the ‘bluntness’ of the

survey tool, given the range and nuances of opinions. However, in assessing

engagement levels within the NHS, Robinson et al (2004) developed a survey

comprising of 12 ‘engagement statements’:

• I speak highly of this organisation to my friends

• I would be happy for my friends and family to use this organisation’s

products/services

• This organisation is known as a good employer

• This organisation has a good reputation generally

• I am proud to tell others I am part of this organisation

• This organisation really inspires the very best in me in the way of job

performance

• I find that my values and the organisation’s are very similar

• I always do more than is actually required

• I try to help others in this organisation whenever I can

• I try to keep abreast of current developments in my area

• I volunteer to do things outside my job that contribute to the organisation’s

Objectives.

• I frequently make suggestions to improve the work of my

team/department/service

Robinson et al (2004) then tested the extent to which it would be valid to

combine all 12 statements into a single engagement measure, with

statistically encouraging results, which enabled Robinson et al to analyse

engagement levels using an indicator that comprised all 12 statements.

Robinson et al (2004) highlights that while this type of survey is useful in

identifying levels of engagement across an organisation, its real value lies in

comparing one group within the organisation to another, and measuring

trends across time.

The case study discussed below demonstrates another important use of an

engagement survey – identifying the strengths on which the organisation can

build, as well as the sources of friction within an organisation, which can then

be addressed.

68

B&Q –CASE STUDY

Profile: Europe’s largest home improvement retailer. UK employment growth

doubled from 17,500 in 2000 to 35,000 by 2003.

Approach: Since 2000, B&Q has used a 12-question survey developed by

Gallup, on seven occasions to measure employee engagement – defined by

the degree to which workers are emotionally committed to their jobs.

Employees respond to each of the 12 questions on a scale of 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) on a range of topics related to employee needs

in the workplace such as friendships, pay, benefits, progress reports, and job

related growth opportunities. High scores reflect engaged employees whose

needs are being met and who are fully engaged in improving workplace

productivity. Middle of the range scores reflect workers who are not engaged,

whilst low scores imply active disengagement – those employees whose

needs are not being met and who can actually discourage productivity.

However, the survey does not merely gauge prevailing workplace sentiment,

rather it is designed to be a tool for action and strategy development. The

survey asks about aspects of engagement that can be influenced by

supervisors, such as recognition and communication. Thus depending on the

outcome, managers can either plan how to exploit their strengths and/or

address the weaknesses. Further, the survey is designed to translate the

‘softer’ aspects of workplace emotions and behaviours into a hard measure of

engagement, which in turn can be linked to organisational outcomes.

Impact: The use of the Gallup survey at B&Q over 7 separate occasions has

allowed the company to build up a wealth of knowledge about what drives

engagement within the company and how engagement levels link to greater

productivity, better customer engagement and higher profits. The results of

surveys have been taken forward into actions to improve scores. Earlier

surveys revealed that company-wide, scores were fairly low, prompting

management and employees alike to change their attitudes in order to

improve engagement. For Instance, one store scored particularly low on the

question ‘At work do my opinions seem to count?’ Managers changed the

agenda of meetings to ask staff if they had issues to raise, and required

managers to feed back subsequently on how the issue was being addressed.

69

Thus the use of the survey here highlights how an issue can be identified,

and how actions can be taken to create the environment to enable the issue

to be resolved. B&Q customer surveys reveal that stores that score highly in

the engagement survey also score higher on customer satisfaction.

Translating this into organisational outcomes, the stores in the top half of

customer loyalty generated £3.4m more in sales each year than stores in the

bottom half. Towers Perrin (2003) presents a range of engagement

statements, many of which have elements common to the Robinson et al

framework, including pride in being part of the organisation, advocacy about

the products and services of the organisation, being inspired by the

organisation to produce one’s best work, and willingness to put in effort

above and beyond normal expectations. The full list of the Towers Perrin

engagement statements is provided below:

• I really care about the future of my company

• I am proud to work for my company

• I have a sense of personal accomplishment from my job

• I would say my company is a good place to work

Tritch (2003) B&Q Boosts Employee Engagement – and Profits

• The company inspires me to do my best work

• I understand how my unit/department contributes to company success

• I understand how my role relates to company goals and objectives

• I am personally motivated to help my company succeed

• I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expected

Based on use of these statements, Towers Perrin (2003) found that just 17%

of respondents are ‘highly engaged’ whilst 19% were found to be ‘disengaged.

The remaining middle is considered to be the ‘moderately engaged’.

2.10 MEASURING DIFFERENT TYPES OF ENGAGEMENT

In their employee attitude and engagement survey, CIPD (2006c) measured

overall engagement but also outline that their research suggests that

engagement has three components:

70

•Cognitive engagement – focusing very hard on work, thinking about very

little else during the working day;

•Emotional engagement – being involved emotionally with your work; and

•Physical engagement – being willing to ‘go the extra mile’ for your employer

and work over and beyond contract.

Although CIPD (2006c) does not place emphasis or importance on any one

component of engagement, the breakdown provides us with an interesting

analysis and classification of the types of behaviours that feed into

engagement and how these impact on the overall engagement levels, as

discussed below.

In measuring cognitive engagement the following four statements were put to

surveyed employees, who were asked to either agree or disagree with the

statements:

• Time passes quickly when I perform my job

• I often think about other things when performing my job

• I am rarely distracted when performing my job

• Performing my job is so absorbing that I forget about everything else

In the CIPD (2006c) survey, only 31% of respondents were found to be

cognitively engaged, and 22% disengaged, implying that this is an area that

requires the most work by organisations to achieve engagement.

Emotional engagement, the following statements were put to employees:

• My own feelings are affected by how well I perform my job

• I really put my heart into my job

• I get excited when I perform well in my job

• I often feel emotionally detached from the job

CIPD (2006c) found that levels of emotional engagement are higher than for

the other two forms of engagement, with 58% of people reportedly emotionally

engaged with their work and only 6% are emotionally disengaged. CIPD

(2006c) highlights that effective individual and organisational management of

the relationships and processes that increase positive emotions can also raise

levels of overall engagement and performance.

71

As regards physical engagement, the CIPD (2006c) asked:

• I stay until the job is done

• I exert a lot of energy performing my job

• I take work home to do

• I avoid working overtime whenever possible

• I avoid working too hard.

According to the CIPD (2006c) results, 38% of employees are physically

engaged with their work, whilst 11% are physically disengaged. It is clear that

some of these elements of the survey of each type of engagement capture the

‘going the extra mile’ element of engagement, and some of these may not be

viewed as positives (i.e. taking work home, working overtime). As mentioned

above, the real value of surveys lies in the extent to which the results are

taken forward and actioned. The case study below of how Royal Bank of

Scotland (RBS) uses its ‘human capital information’ is put forward as an

Instance of good practice in this regard.

RBS – How a major corporation uses its employee data –case study:

Profile: The Royal Bank of Scotland Group (RBS) has over 140,000

employees in 30 countries.

Approach: RBS has recognized that in an organisation of its size,

understanding the effectiveness of its people strategy and ‘employee

proposition’ is a strategic imperative. From 2003, RBS developed a human

capital strategy that provides its leaders with a detailed understanding of how

effective the group is at attracting,

engaging and retaining the best people. RBS has adopted a human capital

‘toolkit’ which includes diagnostic tools, benchmarking resources and

employee research and measurement tools. RBS employs the use of

comprehensive surveys which benchmark performance and report on a

variety of topics such as absence, turnover and diversity. However, the key to

the human capital strategy is its annual survey of employee attitudes

delivered to all 140,000 staff. The results are communicated around the

organisation and managers are provided with an action plan so that at a local

level, tangible actions are agreed and targeted. “This is a sophisticated,

72

business-focused strategy within which employee attitude surveys play a key

role”

(Aitken 2006 cited in CIPD (2006a))

Impact: RBS publishes its human capital measures in its annual accounts

and in its corporate responsibility report. As Aitken highlights “By reporting

how our people strategy drives business performance, we differentiate RBS

Group as a great company to work for, invest with and bank with. Sharing our

approach to developing a highly rewarding and productive workplace is a key

part of this approach”.

Implications for managers: Employee attitude surveys are a fundamental

component of sophisticated strategies for managing human capital. Findings

on employee engagement can be used to monitor performance,

communication, diversity, leadership and work-life balance. Combining

attitudinal data with other indicators in the organisation can provide managers

with a greater understanding of the relationship between HR policies and

practices and organisational performance.

Monitoring engagement

Much of the literature emphasises the use of surveys on an ongoing basis as

a method to monitor engagement over time. However there are several other

tools for monitoring engagement that are highlighted in the literature, for

Instance focus groups (Cambridge County Council – see case study), a

‘human capital toolkit’ (Royal Bank of Scotland – see case study), panels and

employee suggestions (Rotherham MBC – see case study) and monitoring

online feedback (Moorcroft (2006) on Royal Bank of Canada).

However, what is missing from the literature is a discussion of an explicit

monitoring framework detailing how changes in engagement can be

measured, and how progression along a spectrum of engagement might be

quantified. Although some of the literature places employees into categories

of ‘engaged’ or ‘disengaged,’ or ‘highly’ or ‘moderately’ engaged, there is a

73

lack of detail in the literature about monitoring progress in the literature and

quantifying the steps between disengagement and engagement, for Instance.

Summary and key findings:

As discussions earlier highlighted the importance of employee engagement, in

terms of organisational performance, as well as on the outcomes for

customers (of organisations in either the private or public sector), employee

turnover, departmental climate and external advocacy of the organisation.

Getting a measure of the extent of engagement and disengagement in an

organisation is therefore of utmost importance in gauging the underlying

causes of sub-optimal organisational performance. It was discussed how the

propensity for engagement during employment can be identified at the

recruitment stage and several articles noted the importance of recruiting not

only for ability, but for attitude and alignment with the organisation’s values. It

was also noted that the literature presents a diagnostic checklist and the

areas to be aware of in identifying whether an organisation or a department

has an engagement problem. Such warning signs include good performance

going unrecognized and/or unrewarded, meetings that do not result in actions,

and staff feeling distanced from the organisation and its objectives. It

identified throughout the literature that employee surveys are a key starting

point for measuring engagement levels. A range of different factors are

included in each of the surveys found in the literature, but some common

themes include:

• The level of pride in the organisation;

• Advocacy about the organisation as a place to work as well as about its

products and services;

• The extent to which the organisation inspires the best work from employees;

and

• The extent to which employees are motivated to put in effort above and

beyond the call of duty.

It was also highlighted how organisations can identify different types of

engagement – for Instance through the CIPD classification of cognitive,

emotional and physical engagement. Several case studies identified to

illustrate that the true value of engagement surveys lies in how they are used

74

by senior management to identify strengths and weaknesses, which are

subsequently addressed. However, the literature was weak on how specific

monitoring frameworks could be designed and used.

2.11 ASSESSMENT OF THE LITERATURE ON EMPLOYEE

ENGAGEMENT:

Findings in the literature

The key findings of the literature review should be considered within this

context. However, there are still a number of strong messages that emerge

clearly. These are noted below with a critical assessment of the reliability of

these findings concluding this chapter. The key findings, as noted in the

literature, are:

• Employee engagement matters as it impacts on companies’ bottom lines,

both through HR related impacts (such as recruitment and retention) and

through wider impacts on productivity, profit and achieving the aims and

objectives of the organisation;

• The evidence from large-scale quantitative surveys suggests that the

majority of employees are neither engaged nor disengaged, with only around

10 to 30 per cent of employees fully engaged with their work;

• There is no evidence in the literature of significant differences between how

the concept of employee engagement can be applied to private and public

sector organisations. Rather, there are significant differences between

organisations within each sector;

• The models of employee engagement that have been developed can be

applied equally to the public and private sectors;

• A range of themes emerge as factors that influence employee engagement.

These include factors that have a direct influence on employees working

conditions (such as the number of hours worked and the work life balance)

and wider influences linked to the organisation (such as the importance and

value of what the organisation does). A common theme emerging from all

studies is the importance of leadership and two-way communication, and the

need for management to drive forward employee engagement;

• There are differences in how developed these factors are in the public and

private sector. While the private sector tends to perform less well on the direct

75

influences on employees (with public sector workers found to be happier with

job security, being paid fairly, and training and development for Instance) the

public sector seems to have more difficulties around effective leadership;

• In terms of impact, studies tend to emphasize the positive impact of

employee engagement but few quantify this impact reliably. Where an attempt

at quantification is made, the magnitude of the positive impact tends to be

very significant (e.g. 20% increases in productivity);

• Notwithstanding these measurement issues, there has been widespread

recognition and endorsement of employee engagement by some of the ‘big

names’ in the public and private sectors. Clearly, if the likes of the Royal Bank

of Scotland and Microsoft are committing significant resources to employee

engagement, then they are motivated by the drive to secure hard business

benefits;

• It is clear that ‘employee engagement’ has moved beyond HR discussion

papers and concepts into the mainstream strategic and operational

management. It is not a fad - it is reality for many organisations that view it as

having benefits and are using it as a tool to further the organisation’s

objectives. The next challenge is to quantify robustly the cost-effectiveness of

organisational commitment to employee engagement. In this area the

literature has less to say and the jury is still out; and

• There is general agreement that staff surveys can be designed to effectively

measure employee engagement and there are a number of good practice

Instances which can be drawn on to design such surveys.

Gaps and shortcomings of the literature:

In light of the comments made in the introduction to this chapter, there are a

number of shortcomings associated with the literature, as well as gaps not

currently covered. These are charted below:

• There is an inherent positive bias in the literature as noted above;

• The literature tends to emphasize that improvements to employee

engagement is always positive. There is no consideration that a certain level

of employee engagement might be optimal which might differ between

different organisations;

76

• Related to this, further work is required to determine where the focus of the

intervention should be. The literature seems to steer us towards addressing

the disenfranchised majority, but says little relating to the minority of seriously

‘disaffected’. Arguably, if there are significant parts of the workforce

disengaged,

this will have negative impacts, meaning that employers will need to think

carefully about how they identify this portion of the workforce and address the

problem (i.e. through further engagement measures or letting this section of

the workforce go);

• There is also the related issue of how organisations go about recruiting staff

that are likely to have a higher engagement propensity. Several articles were

identified which discuss this issue, but it is suggested that this area would

benefit from more bespoke research related to employee engagement;

• The importance of the different factors underpinning employee engagement

has not really been tested. For Instance, pay and conditions are not

emphasized but a number of empirical studies out with this study field show

that pay and conditions are critical in job satisfaction for particular individuals

and organisational types. More detailed dis-aggregation of employee surveys

by organisational and employee type as drivers of engagement would be

really useful to assess whether employee engagement is dependent on the

factors stipulated in the literature;

• The degree to which effective implementation of any new initiative depends

on the readiness of staff to engage with the change. This is especially critical

within the public sector as surveys show more resistance to change;

• There is no real consideration of the cost of achieving higher levels of

employee engagement;

• The small number of studies attempting to quantify impact relies on

identifying relationships between factors (e.g. current employee engagement

and future profitability). This correlation data cannot determine cause and

effect issues (e.g. the extent to which employment engagement can directly

influence future profitability); and

• There is no evidence, which shows that the models for employee

engagement are equally applicable across all types of work. Arguably, jobs

which are very unpleasant or jobs which are very monetary focused (e.g.

77

stock market dealing) are more easily incentives by monetary rewards. In

addition, it is likely that different individuals will be more or less motivated by

different factors, which is not reflected in the current models for employee

engagement.

Conclusions:

The absence of more critical appraisals of the concept and impact of

employee engagement must highlight in the interpretation of the literature

reviewed. However, there are sufficient indications in the literature to draw

some broad conclusions even if these are not necessarily strongly

underpinned by objective evidence. The key conclusions drawn from the

literature are as follows:

• Employee engagement matters, but the extent to which it can lead to a step-

change in organisational performance is uncertain. In particular, even where

there is a clear vision and understanding of what needs to be done, there can

be significant barriers to effecting ‘change on the ground’, for Instance if staff

are generally opposed to change or if the capacity to implement change is

limited by resource constraints;

• Some of the approaches aimed at improving employee engagement can

significantly increase employee engagement (as measured by staff surveys)

and, in turn, this can have a measurable impact on HR variables such as

retention and staff sickness. The links to wider impacts in areas such as client

service, satisfaction levels and for private sector business – turnover and

profitability - tend to be more tenuous; and

• Increasing employee engagement is highly dependent on leadership and

establishing two-way communication where people’s work and views are

valued and respected. There are thus ways in which any organisation can

work towards better employee engagement without incurring high costs as

long as there is the organisational determination to focus on this issue. Even

in the absence of robust impact data, the principle of employee engagement

is to be endorsed in terms of good practice in people management and the

softer benefits this confers to organisations.

78

2.12 ‘EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT’: DOES IT EXIST, AND IF SO, HOW

DOES IT RELATE TO PERFORMANCE, OTHER CONSTRUCTS, AND

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES BYAMANDA FERGUSON

The concept of ‘employee engagement’ is rapidly gaining popularity, us, and

importance in the workplace. Research and consultancy firms, led by the high-

profile Gallup Organization, are focusing their efforts increasingly on surveys

of employee engagement that aim to improve levels of engagement. This is

because corporate results have reportedly demonstrated a strong link

between some conceptualizations of engagement, worker performance and

business outcomes (The Gallup Organisation, 2004; ISR, 2005). Engagement

is also increasingly being examined in the business and psychological

literature, as researchers struggle to catch up with its wave of popularity in the

corporate world. While there is great interest and importance being placed on

the concept of engagement, there is great confusion in the literature as to

what exactly engagement is as a concept, and how it is to be defined and

measured. Indeed, engagement has been defined, operationalised, and

measured in many diverse ways. Engagement may in fact be a global

concept, as it seems to be a combination of job satisfaction, job involvement,

organisational commitment, and intention to stay. The confusion,

contradiction, and interchange of terms for engagement raise the question as

to whether employee engagement is a valid and reliable construct at all.

Whatever engagement might be, unfortunately the longer employees stay with

an organization the less engaged they become, according to the Gallup

Organization. So it is important to continually understand and foster Employee

Engagement in the workplace’ (Lanphear, 2004, p. 1).

THE BUSINESS WORLD’S USE OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

The Gallup Organization, an international organizational research and

consultancy firm with over 70 years’ experience, conducts the most influential

business survey of Employee Engagement and brought Employee

Engagement to the notice of industry. Gallup’s Employee Engagement scale

is based on studies from 1985, and in 1988 Gallop patented its 12- item

measure of Employee Engagement, the Q12 scale. By March 2001, The

79

Gallup Organisation had rolled out its engagement survey to over 1.5 million

employees, and more than 87,000 work units (Thackray, 2001). The

international business world’s wide use of Gallup’s Employee Engagement

survey is a major testament to the value that corporations are placing on

Employee Engagement. Other major research firms have followed Gallup in

investigations of Employee Engagement. ISR, another major international

employee research and consulting firm, with over 30 years experience, has

also conducted a large-scale international Employee Engagement study. ISR

drew on data from over 360,000 employees from 41 companies in the world’s

ten largest economies, over a three-year period (ISR, 2005). Developmental

Dimensions International Inc (DDI), another major human resources

consultancy, is also conducting engagement surveys. Kenexa, a provider of

HR solutions was retained by Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide to

administer a global employee engagement survey for 116,000 employees in

37 languages and across 750 locations in 80 countries (Pont, 2004). Many

more international research and consultancy firms are focusing increasingly

on conducting engagement surveys. Hewitt Associates, The Hay Group,

Achieve global and McKinsey & Company all conduct Employee Engagement

surveys. Local consultancies are also heavily involved in Employee

Engagement surveys..

Impact of employee engagement on business:

Consultancy firms and corporations have found significant benefits in

Employee Engagement for performance and profit. The Gallup Organisation

found critical links between Employee Engagement, customer loyalty,

business growth and profitability. Gallup compared stores scoring in the top

25% on Employee Engagement and customer loyalty against those in the

bottom 25%. Stores in the bottom 25% significantly under-performed across

three productivity measures: sales, customer complaints and turnover (The

Gallup Organization, 2004). A Fortune 500 company with hundreds of retail

stores located throughout the United States hired Gallup to help them with

problems of wildly varying performance between stores. During the three

years from 2001 to 2004, Gallup estimated that the total additional profit

achieved since the client began implementing Gallup’s performance

80

management systems was about $US75 million (The Gallup Organization,

2004). The Gallup Organization cites countless Instances in its literature of

such results of increased corporate profitability due to increased Employee

Engagement, and is helping a great many companies worldwide to improve

their performance through improvement in Employee Engagement. The ISR

research firm also cites many Instances of increased profit after increasing

Employee Engagement for companies. ISR examined the relationship

between different levels of Employee Engagement and corporate financial

performance, measured by changes in operating margins and changes in net

profit margins. Comparing high-engagement to low-engagement companies

over a three-year period, the financial differences were substantial (ISR,

2005). ISR has found convincing evidence that organisations can only reach

their full potential by emotionally engaging employees and customers (ISR,

2005).

Employee engagement as a construct – the psychological literature:

The psychological literature does not present a clear picture of the construct

of Employee Engagement. Indeed the various definitions of Employee

Engagement operationalise many different constructs and continuums.

Employee Engagement has been reported to belong on the continuum of

stress, as the antithesis of burnout (Halbesleben, (2003). It has also been

reported to belong on the time continuum, as measured by the time spent on

a job (Goddard, 1999). Employee Engagement has also been said to be a

measure of job involvement (Harter, Schmidt & Hayes, 2002); and as a

measure of the combination of an ‘individual’s involvement and

satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work’ (Harter, Schmidt &

Hayes, 2002). Employee Engagement has also been used interchangeably

with commitment (MacCashland, 1999). Authors use these different definitions

and continuums often interchangeably, within the same articles and even in

the same sentence. McCashland (1999, p. 15) refers to engagement and

commitment interchangeably. Yet commitment is a well established construct,

generally separated into either affective or continues commitment (Mowday,

Steer, & Porters, 1979).

81

Definitions in psychological literature:

While Gallup has been conducting Employee Engagement studies since

1985, the concept of employee engagement appears to have been first

mentioned in the psychological literature in 1990 by Khan. Khan (1990)

described it as different from other employee role constructs such as job

involvement, commitment or intrinsic motivation, asserting that it focused on

how psychological experiences of work shape the process of people

presenting and absenting themselves during task performances. Khan argued

that engagement was a multidimensional construct, in that employees could

be emotionally, cognitively or physically engaged. For psychological

engagement and organisational behaviours, the two major dimensions were

emotional and cognitive engagement. Employees could be engaged on one

dimension and not the other. The more engaged an employee was on each

dimension, the higher his/her overall personal engagement. Khan asserted

that employees experienced dimensions of personal engagement or

disengagement during daily tasks. Engagement occurred when one was

cognitively vigilant and/or emotionally connected to others. Disengaged

employees uncoupled themselves from roles and withdrew w cognitively and

emotionally. They displayed incomplete role performances and were

effortless, automatic or robotic (Khan, 1990). Khan has perhaps been the

most prominent of early psychological researchers in the field of Employee

Engagement. McCashland (1999) defined Employee Engagement as

‘commitment or engagement - an emotional outcome to the employee

resulting from the critical components of the workplace. Miles described it as

intensively involving all employees in high-engagement cascades that create

understanding, dialogue, feedback and accountability, empower people to

creatively align their subunits, teams and individual jobs with the major

transformation of the whole enterprise (Miles, 2001). Harter, Schmidt & Hayes

(2002) described it as the individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as

well as enthusiasm for work. Later, Harter and Schmidt, together with Keyes

re-defined it as ‘cognitive and emotional antecedents in the workplace’

(Harter, Schmidt & Keyes, 2003, p. 205). Not only are there various and

conflicting definitions of Employee Engagement in the psychological literature,

there is also confusion as to the direction of relationship between Employee

82

Engagement and other workplace variables. Some definitions assert that

Employee Engagement is something that is produced by aspects in the

workplace (as suggested by the definitions by McCashland, 1999; Miles,

2001; Harter, Schmidt & Keyes, 2003), while others assert that it is something

that the individual brings to the workplace (as suggested by Harter, Schmidt &

Hayes, 2002; Goddard, 1999). What perhaps can be generalised at the very

least, is that some researchers seem to follow Khan (1990) and assert that

Employee Engagement is a combination of workplace contexts and aspects

that are mediated differentially by people’s perceptions and experienced

cognitively and emotionally.

Definitions in management literature:

Some of the management literature defines Employee Engagement in terms

of the recently emerged construct discretionary effort (DE). Employee

Engagement has been described as ‘a positive, two-way relationship between

employee and their organisation’ where ‘both parties are aware of their own

and the other’s needs, and support each other to fulfill these needs. Engaged

employees and organizations go the extra mile, and both reap mutual

benefits.’ (Daniel, 2004, p. 1). Similarly, Employee Engagement has been

defined as ‘the bond employees have with their organization’; that ‘when

employees really care about the business, they are more likely to go the extra

mile’ (Lanphear, 2004, p. 2). These theorists seem to be confusing Employee

Engagement with the existing construct of DE. Other management theorists

argue that Employee Engagement depends on the manager or supervisor. It

has been argued that when managers employ a philosophy of ‘servant-

leadership’ – in that a manager’s primary role is in supporting and serving

those around them – the environment becomes ‘highly engaged’ (Cufaude,

cited in Lanphear, 2004, p. 2). Others argue that to effectively create a highly

engaged environment managers must be engaged; that ‘if managers aren’t

engaged its unlikely employees will respond to any efforts to engage them’

(Soltis, cited in Lanphear, p. 2). Analysis has revealed that Employee

Engagement tends to be based on factors such as the relationship they have

with their managers (Blizzard, 2003). Confidence in the organisation and in

supervisor engagement with work has been positively related to that of their

83

staff members (Leiter & Harvie, 1997). Yet other management theorists claim

that Employee Engagement depends on offering empowerment and that jobs

should fit employees’ interests (Lloyd, 2004; MacDonald, 2002). Some

management theorists argue along lines similar to some psychological

theorists, reporting that there are two types of Employee Engagement:

rational commitment and emotional commitment, and that the latter is more

important in determining performance (Buchanan, 2004). However, again

these theories confuse the construct of engagement with that of commitment.

Evidence of construct validity:

Evidence of the factorial and construct validity of a measure of engagement

has been provided by Halbesleben, with engagement measured as the

antithesis of burnout (2003). Evidence is also provided by The Gallup

Organization for the construct validity of its 12-point scale, the Q12, after

conducting multifactor research (Buckingham & Coffman, 2000). Macgowan

(2003) has also demonstrated construct validity for a measure of Employee

Engagement, using a scale called The Group Engagement Measure (GEM).

Khan (1990, p. 703) provided construct validity for a measure of Employee

Engagement, identifying three psychological conditions to the construct,

namely meaningfulness, safety and availability. Each of these measures of

engagement focuses on different aspects and yet all claim to be measuring

the same construct. Therefore there is a need to clarify the definition,

measurement and construct validity of Employee Engagement.

Conceptualization of employee engagement:

Employee Engagement has been picked up by various and quite different

theoretical frameworks in literature, notably burnout and time. Some of the

research defines 'engagement' as the theoretical antithesis of burnout

(Halbesleben, 2003; Montgomery, Peeters, Schaufeli, Den Ouden, 2003).

Others argue that burnout is a simple concept measured on a stress

continuum and does not relate to Employee Engagement. Burnout has

become an important aspect for workers worldwide. Burnout and its supposed

corollary engagement have been found to act as mediators in most of the

relationships between workplace variables (Leiter & Phyllis, 2002). It has been

84

argued that it is important to identify means for lessening burnout and

promoting ‘job engagement’ to maintain qualified staff (Laub, 1998). Despite

the growing body of literature on burnout there are still many unanswered

questions about the process and measurement. Engagement is in need of

significant research in order to better understand its implications for

employees and organizations.’ Halbesleben, (2003). Halbesleben (2003)

examined a number of issues as to the measurement and process of burnout

and engagement. Firstly, Halbesleben provided evidence of the factorial and

construct validity of an alternative measure of burnout that addresses some of

the limitations of the popular Maslach Burnout Inventory. Halbesleben

investigated the role of perceptions of politics as an antecedent of burnout, as

well as assessing the role of motivation as a mediator in the relationship

between burnout and job performance. Some theorists, notably Goddard,

(1999) describe engagement with the organisation and engagement with the

task as associated with time use. Engagement is defined as ‘being physically

and /or mentally present, and supporting the goals of the organization.

Disengagement from the organization denotes not being present, or not

focused on the goals of the organization. Engagement with the task means

one is present and focused on the immediate task, issue, or problem relating

to the organization. Disengagement from task is defined as either not present

or not focused on the task, issue or problem relating to the organization.

Goddard discusses the theoretical implications of complex relationships

between time and engagement as the locus of an individual’s use of time

along the axes of engagement/disengagement from organization and task

(2001).

THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

A grounded theoretical framework for Employee Engagement has been

presented by Khan (1990), illustrating how ‘psychological experiences of work

and work contexts shape the processes of people presenting and absenting

themselves during task performances’ (1990, p. 694). Khan grounded his

conceptual framework in empirical and existing theoretical frameworks.

Conceptually, Khan started with Goffman’s work (1961a) who suggested that

‘people’s attachment and detachment to their roles varies’ (Khan, 1990, p.

85

694). However, Khan explains that Goffman’s work focused on fleeting face-

to-face encounters, while a different concept was needed to fit organisational

life, which is ‘ongoing, emotionally charged, and psychologically complex’

(Diamond & Allcorn, 1985, cited in Khan, 1990, p. 694). Khan examined

several disciplines to find that ‘psychologists (Freud, 1922), sociologists

(Goffman, 1961b; Merton, 1957) and group theorists (Bion, 1961; Slater,

1966; Smith & Berg, 1987) have documented the idea that people are

inherently ambivalent about being members of ongoing groups and systems

and ‘seek to protect themselves from both isolation and engulfment by

alternately pulling away from and moving towards their memberships. These

pulls and pushes are people’s calibrations of self- in-role, enabling them to

cope with both internal ambivalences and external conditions.’ (Khan, 1990, p.

694). The terms Khan uses to describe these calibrations of self- in-role are

personal engagement and personal disengagement. ‘They refer to the

behaviours by which people bring in or leave out their personal selves during

work role performances’ (1990, p. 694). These terms developed by Khan

integrate previous ideas that people need self expression and self

employment in their work lives as a matter of course (Alderfer, 1972; Maslow,

1954). In his research, Khan analysed each moment of engagement as if

there were a contract between person and role (cf Schein, 1970). Three

psychological conditions emerged as components of Employee Engagement:

meaningfulness, safety and availability (Khan, 1990, p. 703) The journal

Management Today charts the evolution of the term Employee Engagement

as hinging on the recent valuing of staff opinion. The journal argues that

Employee Engagement is the current term being used for the same

phenomenon that has historically been ‘the key to building a sustainable high-

performance organization’ (2004). It argues that previously managers asked

for loyalty and commitment from their staff. Then ‘gurus’ talked of the

‘psychological contract’, while others talked of DE. It argues that Employee

Engagement is just another term for these concepts. The journal argues that

Employee Engagement started with ‘happy sheets’ and basic staff satisfaction

surveys – unscientific attempts to find out what staff were thinking and feeling

about the company. Yet it was only when employers began to at least partially

believe the ‘people are our biggest asset talk’ that they began to show real

86

interest in their employees thoughts and feelings. The journal reports that

‘cracking Employee Engagement at your firm really is the Holy Grail, the X

factor dividing winners from losers’ (2004, p. 1).

No consistency in definition

As discussed, there is a lack of consistency in the psychological and

management literature in the definition of Employee Engagement.

‘Commitment’, ‘participation’, ‘involvement’, ‘inclusion’ and ‘job- fit’ have been

used alternatively with ‘engagement’ even within the same articles. Employee

Engagement is sometimes viewed as the precursor to workplace productivity

and at other times viewed as the product of workplace variables. Different

theoretical frameworks approach Employee Engagement from differing

continuums such as burnout and time. There is also no consistency as to

whether Employee Engagement is viewed relevant to one’s task, job, role,

manager or organisation. Hence, the concept of Employee Engagement is

inconsistent in many ways. While The Gallup Organization’s Employee

Engagement scale is based on studies from 1985, the Gallup’s definition of

this construct is unclear. Gallup argues that great organisations win business

by engaging the complex emotions of employees and customers. Gallup also

argues that Employee Engagement is ‘the psychology of how each employee

connects with customers and with the organisation’; that it is ‘an instant, and

constant, competitive edge where engaged employees utilize their natural

talents’ (Coffman & Gonzalez-Molina, 2002, p. 2). Perhaps more clearly,

Gallup defines Employee Engagement as a significant predictor of desirable

organizational outcomes such as customer satisfaction, retention, and

profitability (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Luthans & Peterson, 2002). ISR

argues that most research firms view Employee Engagement from only one or

two dimensions: affective: how employees feel (their emotions towards the

company, leadership, work environment) and/or behaviorally: how they intend

to act (behavioural) in the future (will they stay, give extra effort etc). ISR

claims to add a third important dimension: cognitive: do employees believe in

and support the goals and values of the organization? (ISR, 2005). There

seems to be as many definitions of Employee Engagement as there are

research firms. Each research firm seems to have its own claim to uniquely

87

defining Employee Engagement that only adds to the confusion of how to

definitively define Employee Engagement.

Individual differences:

Extraneous variables may not necessarily be trivial and could have significant

effects. There is much evidence in the literature for the effect of individual

differences on work performance. Khan (1990) focused on identifying

psychological conditions general enough to explain personal engagement and

disengagement across individuals. Yet Khan presumed that ‘individual

differences shape peoples’ dispositions toward personally engaging or

disengaging in all or some types of role performances’ (1990, p. 718), just as

they shape people’s abilities and willingness to be involved or committed at

work. People would engage differently, ‘given their experiences of

psychological meaningfulness, safety and availability in specific situations’

(Khan, 1990, p 718). For Instance, when people experience situations as

unsafe, it is a matter of individual differences and coping strategies as to what

they do and how they engage or disengage (Portello, 1996; 2001). Some will

be driven by previous experiences, some by various degrees of courage Khan

argued that future research should focus on courage (1990). Personal

relationships have been found to impact work engagement. Recent research

has found that family stress has a severe impact on work stress (Moore,

2004). Gender differences have been found such that men experience

enrichment from work to family, while women experience depletion from work

to family. While women experience enrichment from family to work, men

experience no links from family to work (Rothbard, 1999). Differences of

health and personal values may also impact Employee Engagement such that

some people work to live, while others live to work. Differences of skills, ability

and dispositional variables are also expected to impact levels of Employee

Engagement.

Contextual variables – culture, climate and structure:

Many authors argue that Employee Engagement is influenced not only by

individual differences but also by socio-cultural factors. The culture and

climate of organisations are expected to influence Employee Engagement.

88

Climate includes aspects such as systems and satisfaction with the

organisation; culture includes aspects such as community (Schein, 1970,

1987). The use of outsourcing and virtual workstations and teams has

increased dramatically in recent years and has become a more strategic

process in corporate world. The empirical research

on organisational commitment has not sufficiently focused on the outsourcing

environment (Marquardt, 2000).

Summary

The research aims of this project are to clarify the construct of Employee

Engagement. Specifically, this research attempts (1) the development of a

scale to measure Employee Engagement; (2) to establish if Employee

Engagement is unidimensional or multidimensional as a construct; (3) to

establish reliability and validity of the scale, testing as to whether engagement

shows discriminate validity with respect to job satisfaction, job involvement,

intrinsic motivation, affective commitment, organisational citizenship

behaviours and in- role behaviours; (4) to clarify predictors of Employee

Engagement; (5) an examination of the impact of individual differences are

also explored.

Conclusion

The rapidly accelerating use of the term Employee Engagement management

practices as well as in the psychological and business literature demands

clarification of the construct. If Employee Engagement is a valid construct it

should be included in future research as a construct in its own right. If it is not,

then surely it should not be allowed to dilute well established and explored

theoretical constructs, notably such as commitment and job satisfaction. This

research has potential applications for HRM for role definition, support and

flexibility. For instance, the increased uses of outsourcing and virtual work

teams have become strategic processes for many companies. If Employee

Engagement is so important to companies then, what is the role of Employee

Engagement in these processes? Indeed, if Employee Engagement is so

valuable to companies in that it is having such a profound effect on

performance and profitability, then it warrants and requires future research.

89

CHAPTER 3

RESEACH METHODOLOGY:

Employee Engagement is generally viewed as managing discretionary effort,

that is, when employees have choices they will act in a way that furthers their

organization interests. Engaged employee feel a strong emotional bond to the

organization. This is associated with people demonstrating willingness to

recommend the organization to others and commit time and effort to help the

organization succeed.

It suggests that people are motivated by intrinsic factors e.g. personal growth,

working to a common purpose, being part of a larger process, rather than

simply focusing on extrinsic factors e.g. pay and rewards. The concept has

gained popularity as various studies have demonstrated links with

productivity. It is often linked to the notion of employees’ voice and

empowerment.

The Gallup organization published research that showed that engaged

employees are more productive, more profitable, more customer-focused,

safer and less likely to leave their employer. The review stated that

engagement with employees within a firm has shown to motivate the

employee to work beyond personal factors and work more for the success of

the firm.

Recent research has focused on developing a better understanding of how

variables such as quality of work relationships and values of the organization

interact and their link to important work outcomes. From the perspective of the

employee, “outcomes” range from strong commitment to the isolation of

oneself from the organization. The study done by Gallup management journal

has shown that only 29% of employees are actively engaged In their jobs.

Those “engaged” Employees work with the passion and feel a strong

connection to their company. Moreover, 54% of employees are not engaged

meaning that they go through each workday putting time but no passion into

90

their work. Also, 17% of employees are actively disengaged, meaning that

they busy acting out of their own personal unhappiness, which undermines

what their engaged workers are trying to accomplish. Access to a reliable

model enables organization to conduct validation studies to establish the

relationship studies of employee engagement to productivity / performance

and other measures linked to effectiveness.

As employee productivity is clearly connected with employee engagement,

creating an environment that encourages employee engagement is

considered to be essential in the effective management of human capital.

Current studies suggest that employee engagement will be influenced

by:

Employee perception of the job importance, i.e. an employee’s attitude

toward the job’s importance and the company had the greatest impact

on loyalty and customer service than all other employee factors

combined.

Employee clarity of the job expectations “if expectations are not clear

and basic materials and equipment not provided, negative emotions

such as boredom or resentment may result, and the employee may

them become focused on surviving more than thinking about how he

can help the organization succeed.

Career advancement/ improvement opportunities. “Plant supervisors

and managers indicated that many plant improvements were being

made outside the suggestions in order to rep the bonuses generated

by the subsequent cost savings.

Regular feedback and dialogue with superiors. “Feedback is the key to

giving employees a sense of where they’re going, but many

organizations are remarkably bad at giving it. What I really want to hear

was ‘thanks, you did a good job.’ But all my boss did was hand me a

Cheque’.

91

Quality of working relationship with peers, supervisors, and

subordinates. “If employee’s relationship with their managers is

fractured, then no amount of perks will persuade the employees to

perform at top levels. Employee engagement is a direct reflection of

how employees feel about their relationship with the boss.”

Perceptions of the ethos and values of the organization. “‘Inspiration

and values’ is the most important of the six drivers in our Engaged

performance model.

As additional research becomes available, the significance of the various

factors will become more evident. For many, the employee engagement story

begins in 1994. When James Heskett and his colleagues at the Harvard

Business School published their seminal paper putting the service-profit chain

to work.

The service-profit chain model they had created could hardly be more

intuitive:

Employee satisfaction drives Employee Retention drives Employee

Productivity drives Service value drives customer Satisfaction drives

Customer loyalty drives Profitability and Growth. In short, Engaged

Employees create loyal customers who in turn create Bigger Profits.

For a few, including Richard Branson at Virgin, this simple premise was the

basis upon which they had already begun their businesses. As Branson says,

“we embarked in consciously building virgin into a brand which stood for

quality, value, fun and a sense of challenge. We also developed these ideas

in the belief that our first priority should be the people who work for the

companies then the customers, then the shareholder. Because if the staff is

motivated then the customers will be happy and the shareholders will then

benefit through the company’s success.”

92

SIGNIFICATION OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

Most organization today realizes that a ‘satisfied’ employee is not necessarily

the ‘best’ employee in terms of loyalty and productivity. It is only an ‘engaged

employee’ who is intellectually and emotionally bound with the organization,

feels passionately about its goals and is committed towards its values that can

termed thus. He who goes the extra mile beyond the basic job responsibility

and is associated with the actions that drive the business. Moreover, in times

of diminishing loyalty, employee engagement is powerful retention strategy.

The fact that it has a strong impact on that bottom line adds to its significance.

An engaged employee gives his company his 100 percent. This is what

makes the difference in an industry where the most valuable resource of a

company walks out of the door every evening.

The key factor to employee engagement is creating greater motivation for

their work and commitment to their organization. We cannot retain efficient

employees only by paying high salaries and offering attractive benefits. We

need to create enthusiasm for their roles, their work and the organization and

ensure they are well integrated.

Employee engagement relates to the employee’s commitment to the

organization’s success. Engaged employees who are inspired and guided by

the leadership, equipped with the right tools and managed by the right tools

and managed by the right systems and processes deliver superior

performance. Employee engagement today encompasses training,

development, work environment, leadership, performance management, work

life balance, communication, compensation, benefits, commitment, fun and

social activities. This enhances the bonding between employees and

commitment to the company.

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The objective of the study is;

93

To study the perception of employees regarding employee

engagement in the organization.

To understand employees experiences and expectations in their

working with the organization;

To study the employee’s perception related to employee role in the

organisation, Work Enviourment, Organisation planning & leadership,

Rewards, Organisation Culture & Communication, training &

development & career growth and its impact on employee

engagement

RESEARCH DESIGN:

The study is an explorative type as it aims to study the perception of

employees at Top and Middle level executives on employee engagement.

POPULATION AND SAMPLE:

The target population for this study consists of 558 employees from

Tran speck ltd. The total sample size is 70, which consists of the cadre of

officer to Manager.

TOOLS FOR DATA COLLECTION:

A questionnaire is developed for this specific study consisting of two

components. The first part of the instrument identified employees’

demographic data, such as age, gender, education level, current job position,

tenure with the current job & family information. The second component of the

instrument comprised of several Likert-type scale items. These questions

sought to assess the engagement level of the employees in the organisation

on the basis of work enviourment, rewards, employees role in the

organisation, Organisation planning & leadership, Training development,

Career Growth & Advancement & organisation Culture & communication.

94

DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION

The method use for analyzing & interpret the data is Simple frequency as well

as Bi-vitiate analysis.

LIMITATIONS:

While undertaking the study, researcher could face few limitations like:

Employee engagement, being relatively new topic so it would be

difficult to find out required information on this topic.

As researcher is a fresher so there may be some mistakes in framing

or preparing the tool and while collecting the required information and

data.

Time factor is also one of the limitations if data are not collected within

that period, there can be delay in analyzing the data.

95

CHAPTER 4

DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION

DISTRIBUTION AS PER AGE :

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

21-30 8 11.428631-40 11 15.714341-50 38 54.2857

50 onwards 13 18.5714TOTAL 70 100

The above table shows the total number of the respondents according to the

given age group.

DISTRIBUTION AS PER GENDER:

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Male 68 97.14286Female 2 2.857143

Transgender 0 0Not given 0 0TOTAL 70 100

The above table shows the ratio between the male & female in study.

DISTRIBUTION AS PER EDUCATION QUALIFICATION:

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Bachelors 35 50

Masters 19 27.14286

Others 16 22.85714

Not given 0 0

TOTAL 70 100

The above table shows that the education qualification of an employees in the

organisation.

DISTRIBUTION AS PER TYPE OF FAMILY:

96

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Joint 32 45.71429

Nuclear 38 54.28571

Not applicable 0 0

Not given 0 0

TOTAL 70 100

The above table shows that the type of the family of an employees in an

organization.

DISTRIBUTION OF AS PER DEPARTMENTS:

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGEPersonnel & HRM 3 4.285714286

ERP 3 4.285714286Information Technology 1 1.428571429

Administration 1 1.428571429Account & Finance 7 10

legislations 4 5.714285714Excise 1 1.428571429Stores 1 1.428571429

Safety, Heath & Enviourment 13 18.57142857Marketing 5 7.142857143

R&D 4 5.714285714T. C Plant 3 4.285714286

Q A 2 2.857142857Material 2 2.857142857Projects 4 5.714285714Exports 1 1.428571429

Business Development 2 2.857142857EPD 6 8.571428571

Operations 3 4.285714286Export Marketing 1 1.428571429

BIO 0 0Others 2 2.857142857TOTAL 70 100

The above table shows that the employee ratio from different department in

an organisation.

DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES CADRE:

97

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

Officer 4 5.714286

Sr. Officer 1 1.428571

Executive 30 42.85714

Sr. Executive 8 11.42857

Dy. Manager 12 17.14286

Asst. Manager 5 7.142857

Manager 8 11.42857

Sr. Manager 2 2.857143

Total 70 100

The above table shows that the employees designation holding in an

organisation.

DISTRIBUTION AS PER NO. OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE:

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

In transpek ltd.

0-10 18 25.71429

11-20 32 45.71429

21-30 18 25.71429

30 onwards 2 2.857143

Total (a) 70 100

Total No of years

0-10 11 15.71429

11-20 31 44.28571

21-30 23 32.85714

30 onwards 5 7.142857

Total(b) 70 100

Above table shows the total and in company, no. of years of experience of an

employees in an organisation.

WHAT DO I GET AS AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE?

EMPLOYEES ROLE IN ORGANISATION:

98

1) EMPLOYEE LIKE WHAT THE WORK THEY DO:

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 2 2.85

D 3 4.3

A 40 57.15

SA 25 35.7

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 2.85% employee strongly disagree with that, they like

what the work they do, 4.3% employee disagree with that, they like what the

work they do, 57.15 % employee agree with that, they like what the work they

do & 35.70 % employee strongly agree with that, they like what the work they

do.

2) EMPLOYEE HAS GIVEN ENOUGH AUHTORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS

THAT THEY NEED TO MAKE:

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 1 1.43

D 9 12.87

A 52 74.29

SA 8 11.41

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagree with that, they

have given enough authority to make decisions that he need to make, 12.87%

employee disagree with that, they have given enough authority to make

decisions that he need to make, 74.29 % employee agree with that, they have

given enough authority to make decisions that he need to make & 11.41%

99

employee strongly agree with that, they have given enough authority to make

decisions that he need to make.

3) EMPLOYEES BELIEVE THEIR JOB IS SECURE:

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 4 5.69

D 4 5.71

A 40 57.14

SA 22 31.46

TOTAL 69 98.6

Above table shows that 5.69% employee strongly disagree with that, their job

is secure, 5.71%employee strongly disagree with that, their job is secure,

57.14%employee agree with that, their job is secure, 31.46%employee

strongly agree with that, their job is secure.

4) EMPLOYEES JOB MAKES GOOD USE OF THEIR SKILLS AND

ABILITIES.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 2 2.86

D 2 2.86

A 32 45.71

SA 34 48.57

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 2.86% employee strongly disagree with that, their job

makes good use of their skills and abilities, 2.86%employee disagree with

that, job makes good use of their skills and abilities, 45.71% employee agree

with that, job makes good use of their skills and abilities, 48.57%employee

strongly agree with that, job makes good use of their skills and abilities.

5) EMPLOYEES HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR JOB ROLE.

100

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 2 2.87

D 4 5.71

A 32 45.71

SA 32 45.71

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows, that 2.87% employee strongly disagree with that, they

have a clear understanding of their job role. 5.71%employee disagree with

that, they have a clear understanding of their job role., 45.71% employee

agree with that they Have a clear understanding of their job role., 45.71%

employee strongly agree with that, they have a clear understanding of their

job role.

6) EMPLOYEE UNDERSTANDS THE IMPORTANCE OF THEIR ROLE TO THE

SUCCESS OF THE ORGANIZATION.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 2 2.86

D 3 4.29

A 15 21.43

SA 50 71.42

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 2.87% employee strongly disagree with that, they

understands the importance of their role to the success of the organization,

4.29% they understands the importance of their role to the success of the

organization, 21.43% employee agree with that they understands the

importance of their role to the success of the organization, 71.42%employee

strongly agree with that, they understands the importance of their role to the

success of the organization.

WORK ENVIRONMENT

101

7) EMPLOYEES BELIEVE THAT THEIR WORK AREA IS ADEQUATELY

CLEAN & SAFE.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 0 0

D 3 4.29

A 41 58.57

SA 26 37.14

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 0% employee strongly disagree with that, they believe

that their work area is adequately clean & safe. 4.29%employee disagree with

that, they believe that their work area is adequately clean, 58.57% employee

agree with that they believe that their work area is adequately clean., 37.14%

employee strongly agree with that, they believe that their work area is

adequately clean.

8) THERE IS ADEQUATE NOISE CONTROL TO ALLOW EMPLOPYEE TO

FOCUS ON HIS WORK:

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 2 2.86

D 6 8.57

A 46 65.71

SA 16 22.86

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 2.86% employee strongly disagree with that, there is

adequate noise control to allow employee to focus on his work. 8.57%

employee disagree with that, there is adequate noise control to allow

employee to focus on his work, 65.71% employee agree with that there is

adequate noise control to allow employee to focus on his work.,

102

22.86%employee strongly agree with that, there is adequate noise control to

allow employee to focus on his work

REWARDS

9) EMPLOYEE RECEIVES A FAIR RETURN (FINANCIAL REWARDS, JOB

SATISFACTION ETC) FROM THE ORGANIZATION FOR THE EFFORTS

EMPLOYEE GIVE IN THEIR JOB.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 3 4.29

D 9 12.86

A 46 65.71

SA 12 17.14

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 4.29% employee strongly disagree with that they

receives a fair return (financial rewards, job satisfaction etc) from the

organization for the efforts employee give in his job.. 5.71%employee

disagree with that, receives a fair return (financial rewards, job satisfaction

etc) from the organization for the efforts employee give in his job., 45.71%

employee agree with that employees has a clear understanding of their job

role., 45.71%employee strongly agree with that, employees has a clear

understanding of their job role.

WHAT DO I GIVE TO THE ORGANISATION?

103

EMPLOYEES RELATIONSHIP WITH IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR

10) EMPLOYEE SUPERVISOR TREATS THEM WITH RESPECT

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 0 0

D 0 0

A 42 60

SA 28 40

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows 0% employee strongly disagree with that, supervisor treats

them with respect. 0% employee disagree with that, supervisor treats them

with respect., 60% employee agree with that supervisor treats them with

respect., 40% employee strongly agree with that, supervisor treats them with

respect.

11) EMPLOYEE SUPERVISOR HANDLES THERI WORK-RELATED &

PERSONAL ISSUES SATISFACTORILY.

Particulars Frequency Percentage

SD 1 1.43

D 2 2.86

A 48 68.57

SA 19 27.14

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagree with that, their

supervisor handles their work-related & personal issues satisfactorily. 2.86%

employee disagree with that, supervisor handles their work-related & personal

issues satisfactorily. 68.57% employee agrees with that supervisor handles

their work-related & personal issues satisfactorily. 27.14% employee strongly

agrees with that, supervisor handles their work-related & personal issues

satisfactorily.

104

12) EMPLOYEE SUPERVISOR ACKNOWLEDGES WHEN THEY DO THEIR

WORK WELL.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 1 1.43

D 1 1.43

A 37 52.86

SA 31 44.28

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows, that 1.43% employee strongly disagree with that, their

supervisor acknowledges when they do their work well. 1.43%employee

disagree with that their supervisor acknowledges when they do their work

well., 52.86% employee agree with that their supervisor acknowledges when

they do their work well., 44.28% employee strongly agree with that, their

supervisor acknowledges when they do their work well.

13) EMPLOYEE SUPERVISOR IS OPEN TO HEARING THEIR OPINION OR

FEEDBACK.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 0 0

D 1 1.43

A 32 45.71

SA 37 52.86

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 0% employee strongly disagree with that, their

supervisor is open to hearing their opinion or feedback. 1.43%employee

disagree with that, their supervisor is open to hearing their opinion or

feedback, 45.71% employee agree with that their supervisor is open to

hearing their opinion or feedback., 52.86%employee strongly agree with that,

their supervisor is open to hearing their opinion or feedback.

105

14) EMPLOYEE SUPERVISOR HELPS THEM DEVELOP TO THEIR FULLEST

POTENTIAL.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 1 1.43

D 1 1.43

A 39 55.71

SA 29 41.43

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagree with that, their

supervisor helps them develop to their fullest potential. 1.43%employee

disagree with that, their supervisor helps them develop to their fullest

potential, 55.71% employee agree with that their supervisor helps them

develop to their fullest potential., 41.43%employee strongly agree with that,

their supervisor helps them develop to their fullest potential.

BONDING WITH ORGANIGANISATION?

ORGANISATION PLANNING & LEADERSHIP

15) THERE IS ADEQUATE PLANNING OF CORPORATE OBJECTIVES.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 1 1.43

D 3 4.29

A 59 84.28

SA 7 10

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagree with that, There is

adequate planning of corporate objectives 4.29%employee disagree with that,

There is adequate planning of corporate objectives, 84.28% employee agree

106

with that There is adequate planning of corporate objectives., 10%employee

strongly agree with that, There is adequate planning of corporate objectives .

16) THERE IS ADEQUATE FOLLOW-THROUGH OF CORPORATE

OBJECTIVES

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 1 1.43

D 5 7.14

A 59 84.29

SA 5 7.14

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagree with that, There is

adequate planning of corporate objectives 7.14%employee disagree with that,

There is adequate planning of corporate objectives, 84.28% employee agree

with that There is adequate planning of corporate objectives., 7.14%

employee strongly agree with that, There is adequate planning of corporate

objectives.

17) THERE IS ADEQUATE PLANNING OF DEPARTMENTAL OBJECTIVES

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 1 1.43

D 5 7.14

A 53 75.71

SA 11 15.72

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagree with that, There is

adequate planning of corporate 7.14 %employee disagree with that, There is

adequate planning of corporate objectives, 75.71% employee agree with that

There is adequate planning of corporate objectives., 15.72%employee

strongly agree with that, There is adequate planning of corporate objectives .

107

18) THERE IS ADEQUATE FOLLOW-THROUGH OF DEPARTMENTAL

OBJECTIVES

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 0 0

D 5 7.14

A 50 71.43

SA 15 21.43

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 0% employee strongly disagree with that, There is

adequate follow-through of departmental objectives 7.14%employee disagree

with that, There is adequate follow-through of departmental objectives, 7.14%

employee agree with that There is adequate follow-through of departmental

objectives., 21.43% employee strongly agree with that, There is adequate

follow-through of departmental objectives.

ORGANISATION CULTURE & COMMUNICATION

19) EMPLOYEE HAS A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF HOW

ORGANIZATION IS DOING FINANCIALLY.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 2 2.86

D 3 4.29

A 51 72.85

SA 14 20

TOTAL 70 100.00

Above table shows that 2.86% employee strongly disagrees with that,

employee have a good understanding of how organization is doing financially.

4.29%employee disagree with that, employee have a good understanding of

how organization is doing financially, 72.85% employee agree with that

employee have a good understanding of how organization is doing

108

financially., 20%employee strongly agree with that employee have a good

understanding of how organization is doing financially.

20) ORGANIZATION GIVES EMPLOYEE ENOUGH RECOGNITION FOR

WORK THAT IS DONE WELL.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 1 1.43

D 3 4.29

A 47 67.14

SA 19 27.14

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagree with that,

organization gives employee enough recognition for work that is done well.

4.29%employee disagree with that, organization gives employee enough

recognition for work that is done well., 67.14% employee agree with that

organization gives employee enough recognition for work that is done well..,

27.14%employee strongly agree with that, organization gives employee

enough recognition for work that is done well.

21) EMPLOYEE BELIEVES THERE IS A SPIRIT OF COOPERATION

WITHIN ORGANIZATION.

Particulars Frequency Percentage

SD 1 1.43

D 5 7.14

A 45 64.29

SA 19 27.14

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagree with that, there is

there is a spirit of cooperation within organization 7.14%employee disagree

with that, t there is a spirit of cooperation within organization, 64.29%

employee agree with that there is a spirit of cooperation within organization,

27.14% employee strongly agree with that, there is a spirit of cooperation

within organization.

109

22) EMPLOYEE LIKE THE PEOPLE WHOM THEY WORK WITH IN

ORGANIZATION.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 1 1.43

D 4 5.71

A 28 40

SA 37 52.86

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagrees with that, they

like the people whom they work with in organization. 5.71%employee

disagree with that, they like the people whom they work with in organization,

40% employee agree with that they like the people whom they work with in

organization. 52.86% employee strongly agree with that, they like the people

whom they work with in organization

HOW CAN I DEVELOP PROFESSIONALLY

TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT:

23) ORGANIZATION PROVIDES AS MUCH INITIAL & ONGOING

TRAINING AS EMPLOYEE NEED.

110

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 1 1.43

D 10 14.29

A 46 65.71

SA 13 18.57

TOTAL 70 100

above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagrees with that,

organization provides as much initial & ongoing training as employee need.

14.29% employee disagree with that organization provides as initial & ongoing

training as employee need. , 65.71% employee agrees with that organization

provides as much initial & ongoing training as employee need, 18.57%

employee strongly agrees with that, organization provides as much initial &

ongoing training as employee need.

24) EMPLOYEE TRUSTS WHAT THE COMPANY TELLS THEM & TAKES

TO ADVANCE THEIR CAREER.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 1 1.43

D 8 11.43

A 49 70

SA 12 17.14

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagrees with that, they

trusts what the company tells them & takes to advance their career.

11.43%employee disagree with that, they trusts what the company tells them

& takes to advance their career., 70% employee agree with that they trusts

what the company tells them & takes to advance their career,

17.14%employee strongly agree with that, they trusts what the company tells

them & takes to advance their career.

111

25) ORGANIZATION PROVIDES TRAINING OR EXPERIENCES TO HELP

THEM TO EXPLORE OTHER POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE

COMPANY.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 1 1.43

D 11 15.71

A 47 67.14

SA 11 15.72

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagree with that,

Organization provides training or experiences to help them TO explore other

possible opportunities within the company, 15.71%employee disagree with

that, Organization provides training or experiences to help them TO explore

other possible opportunities within the company, 67.14% employee agrees

with that Organization provides training or experiences to help them TO

explore other possible opportunities within the company, 15.72%employee

strongly agrees with that, Organization provides training or experiences to

help them TO explore other possible opportunities within the company.

CAREER GROWTH AND ADVANCEMENT:

26) THIS ORGANIZATION TAKES A GENUINE INTEREST IN THE WELL-

BEING OF EMPLOYEES.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 0 0

D 8 11.43

A 39 55.71

SA 23 32.86

TOTAL 70 100

112

Above table shows that 0% employee strongly disagree with that, organization

takes a genuine interest in the well being of employees 11.43%employee

disagree with that, organization takes a genuine interest in the well being of

employees, 55.71% employee agree with that organization takes a genuine

interest in the well being of employees, 32.86% employee strongly agree with

that, organization takes a genuine interest in the well being of employees

27) THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYEE TO ADVANCE HIS

CAREER IN THIS ORGANIZATION.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGESD 1 1.43D 5 7.14A 45 64.29

SA 19 27.14TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagree with that, there are

opportunities for employee to advance his career in this organization. 7.14%

employee disagree with that, there are opportunities for employee to advance

his career in this organization., 64.29% employee agree with that there are

opportunities for employee to advance his career in this organization, 27.14%

employee strongly agree with that, there are opportunities for employee to

advance his career in this organization.

28) EMPLOYEE RECEIVES EFFECTIVE SUPPORT TO DEVELOP YOUR

SKILLS AND TALENTS.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 1 1.43

D 3 4.29

A 42 60

SA 24 34.28

TOTAL 70 100

113

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagree with that, they

receives effective support to develop your skills and talents 4.29%employee

disagree with that, receives effective support to develop your skills and

talents, 60% employee agree with that receives effective support to develop

your skills and talents., 34.28% employee strongly agree with that, receives

effective support to develop your skills and talents

29) IT IS CLEAR TO EMPLOYEE HOW TO ADVANCE HIS CAREERS IN THIS

ORGANIZATION.

PARTICULARS FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE

SD 1 1.43

D 3 4.29

A 42 60

SA 24 34.28

TOTAL 70 100

Above table shows that 1.43% employee strongly disagree with that, It is clear

to them, how to advance his careers in this organization 4.29%employee

disagree with that, It is clear to them, how to advance his careers in this

organization, 60% employee agree with It is clear to them, how to advance his

careers in this organization., 34.28% employee strongly agree with that, It is

clear to them, how to advance his careers in this organization.

BIVARIATE ANALYSIS

TABLE 1

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & THE EMPLOYEE’S

ROLE IN THE ORGANISATION.

114

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALAge 21-30 2 6 8

Row % 25 75 100Column % 5.12820513 19.3548387Age 31-40 7 4 11

Row% 63.6363636 36.3636364 100Column% 17.9487179 12.9032258Age 41-50 22 16 38

Row% 57.8947368 42.1052632 100Column% 56.4102564 51.6129032

Age 50 & onwards 8 5 13Row% 61.5384615 38.4615385 100

Column% 20.5128205 16.1290323Total 39 31 70

Row% 55.7142857 44.2857143 100Column% 100 100

The above table shows the level of engagement among employees between

the age of employees and the employee role in the organisation. Here, the

above table refines is on the basis of the score of High & Low, whose score is

39 & 31 respectively i.e. 39 (55.7142857%) employees believes that the

engagement is high among employees & others 31 (44.2857143%)

employees believes that the engagement is low among employees in the

organisation.

The 39 employees who believe the employees role in the organisation is high,

falls in the age group of 21-30 are 2 (5.12820513%), 31-40 are 7

(17.9487179%), 41-50 are 22 (56.4102564%) and 50 & onwards are 8

(20.5128205%).

The 31 employees who believe the employee role in the organisation is low,

falls in the age group of the 21-30 are 6 (19.3548387%), 31-40 are 4

(12.9032258%), 41-50 are 16 (51.6129032%) and 50 & onwards are 5

(16.1290323%).

TABLE 2

115

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & THE WORK

ENVIOURMENT IN THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALAge 21-30 2 6 8

Row % 25 75 100Column % 7.4074074 13.953Age 31-40 7 4 11

Row% 63.636364 36.364 100Column% 25.925926 9.3023Age 41-50 12 26 38

Row% 31.578947 68.421 100Column% 44.444444 60.465

Age 50 & onwards 6 7 13Row% 46.153846 53.846 100

Column% 22.222222 16.279Total 27 43 70

Row% 38.571429 61.429 100Column% 100 100

The above table shows the level of engagement among employees between

the age of employees and the work enviourment in the organisation. Here, the

above table refines is on the basis of the score of High & Low, whose score is

27 & 43 respectively i.e. 27 (38.571429%) employees believes that the

engagement is high among employees & others 43 (61.429%) employees

believes that the engagement is low among employees in the organisation.

The 27 employees who believe the work enviourment in the organisation is

high, falls in the age group of 21-30 are 2 (7.4074074%), 31-40 are 7

(25.925926%), 41-50 are 12 (44.444444%) and 50 & onwards are 6

(22.222222%).

The 43 employees who believe the work enviourment in the organisation is

low, falls in the age group of the 21-30 are 6 (13.953%), 31-40 are 4

(9.3023%), 41-50 are 26 (60.465%) and 50 & onwards are 7(16.279%).

TABLE 3

116

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & THE REWARDS

SYSTEMS IN THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTAL

Age 21-30 3 5 8Row % 37.5 62.5 100

Column % 25 8.62069Age 31-40 2 9 11

Row% 18.182 81.8182 100Column% 16.667 15.5172Age 41-50 5 33 38

Row% 13.158 86.8421 100Column% 41.667 56.8966

Age 50 & onwards 2 11 13

Row% 15.385 84.6154 100Column% 16.667 18.9655

Total 12 58 70Row% 17.143 82.8571 100

Column% 100 100

The above table shows the level of engagement among employees between

the age of employees and the rewards system in the organisation. Here, the

above table refines is on the basis of the score of High & Low, whose score is

12 & 58 respectively i.e. 12 (17.143%) employees believes that the

engagement is high among employees & others 58 (17.143%) employees

believes that the engagement is low among employees in the organisation.

The 12 employees who believe the rewards system in the organisation is

high, falls in the age group of 21-30 are 3 (25%), 31-40 are 2 (16.667%), 41-

50 are 5 (41.667%) and 50 & onwards are 2 (16.667%).

The 58 employees who believe the rewards system in the organisation is low,

falls in the age group of the 21-30 are 5 (8.62069%), 31-40 are 9 (15.5172%),

41-50 are 33 (56.8966%) and 50 & onwards are 11(18.9655%).

TABLE 4

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTAL

117

Age 21-30 2 6 8Row % 25 75 100

Column % 5.7143 17.143Age 31-40 5 6 11

Row% 45.455 54.545 100Column% 14.286 17.143Age 41-50 20 18 38

Row% 52.632 47.368 100Column% 57.143 51.429

Age 50 & onwards 8 5 13Row% 61.538 38.462 100

Column% 22.857 14.286Total 35 35 70

Row% 50 50 100Column% 100 100

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & THE EMPLOYEES

RELATIONSHIP WITH IMMIDIATE SUPERVISOR:

The above table shows the level of engagement among employees between

the age of employees and the employee relationship with immediate

supervisor in the organisation. Here, the above table refines is on the basis of

the score of High & Low, whose score is 35 & 35 respectively i.e. 35 (50%)

employees believes that the engagement is high among employees & others

35 (50%) employees believes that the engagement is low among employees

in the organisation.

The 35 employees who believe the employee relationship with immediate

supervisor in the organisation is high, falls in the age group of 21-30 are 2

(5.7143%), 31-40 are 5 (14.286%), 41-50 are 20 (57.143%) and 50 &

onwards are 8 (22.857%).

The 35 employees who believe the employee relationship with immediate

supervisor in the organisation is low, falls in the age group of the 21-30 are 6

(17.143%), 31-40 are 6 (17.143%), 41-50 are 18 (51.429%) and 50 &

onwards are 5 (14.286%).

TABLE 5

118

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & ORGANISATION

PLANNING & LEADERSHIP WITH THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALAge 21-30 3 5 8

Row % 37.5 62.5 100Column % 16.667 10Age 31-40 3 8 11

Row% 27.273 72.727 100Column% 16.667 16Age 41-50 9 29 38

Row% 23.684 76.416 100Column% 50 54

Age 50 & onwards 3 10 13Row% 23.077 76.923 100

Column% 16.667 20Total 18 52 70

Row% 25.714 74.286 100Column% 100 100

The above table shows the level of engagement among employees between

the age of the employees and the organisation planning & leadership in the

organisation. Here, the above table refines is on the basis of the score of

High & Low, whose score is 18 & 52 respectively i.e. 18 (25.714%) employees

believes that the engagement is high among employees & others 52

(74.286%) employees believes that the engagement is low among employees

in the organisation.

The 18 employees who believe organisation planning & leadership in the

organisation is high, falls in the age group of 21-30 are 3 (16.667%), 31-40

are 3 (16.667%), 41-50 are 9 (50%) and 50 & onwards are 3 (16.667%).

The 52 employees who believe organisation planning & leadership in the

organisation is low, falls in the age group of the 21-30 are 5 (10%), 31-40 are

8 (16%), 41-50 are 29 (54%) and 50 & onwards are 10 (20%).

TABLE 6

119

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & ORGANISATION

CULTURE & COMMUNICATION WITH THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALAge 21-30 5 3 8

Row % 62.5 37.5 100Column % 11.628 11.111Age 31-40 5 6 11

Row% 45.455 54.545 100Column% 11.628 22.222Age 41-50 25 13 38

Row% 65.789 34.211 100Column% 58.14 48.148

Age 50 & onwards 8 5 13Row% 61.538 38.462 100

Column% 18.605 18.519Total 43 27 70

Row% 61.429 38.571 100Column% 100 100

The above table shows the level of engagement among employees between

the age group and the organisation culture & communication with the

organisation. Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High &

Low, which score is 43 & 27 respectively i.e. 43 (61.429%) employees

believes that the engagement is high among employees & others 27

(38.571%) employees believes that the engagement is low among employees

in the organisation.

The 43 employees who believe the organisation culture & communication with

the organisation is high, falls in the age group of the 21-30 are 5 (11.628%),

31-40 are 5 (11.628%), 41-50 are 25 (58.14%) and 50 & onwards are 8

(18.605%).

The 27 employees who believe the organisation culture & communication with

the organisation is low, falls in the age group of the 21-30 are 3 (11.111%),

31-40 are 6 (22.222%), 41-50 are 13 (48.148%) and 50 & onwards are 5

(18.519%).

120

TABLE 7

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & TRAINING &

DEVELOPMENT WITH THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALAge 21-30 3 5 8

Row % 37.5 62.5 100Column % 12.5 10.87Age 31-40 1 10 11

Row% 9.0909 90.909 100Column% 4.1667 21.739Age 41-50 17 21 38

Row% 44.737 55.263 100Column% 70.833 45.652

Age 50 & onwards 3 10 13Row% 23.077 76.923 100

Column% 12.5 21.739Total 24 46 70

Row% 34.286 65.714 100Column% 100 100

The above table shows the level of engagement among employees between

the age and the training & development in the organisation. Here, the above

table refinement is on the basis of the High & Low, which score is 24 & 46

respectively i.e. 24 (34.286%) employees believes that the engagement is

high among employees & others 46 (65.714%) employees believes that the

engagement is low among employees in the organisation.

The 24 employees who believe the engagement is high, falls in the age group

of the 21-30 are 3 (12.5%), 31-40 are 1 (4.1667%), 41-50 are 17 (70.833%)

and 50 & onwards are 3 (12.5%).

The 46 employees who believe the engagement is low, falls in the age group

of the 21-30 are 5 (10.87%), 31-40 are 10 (21.739%), 41-50 are 21 (45.652%)

and 50 & onwards are 10 (21.739%).

TABLE 8

121

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & CAREER GROWTH

AND ADVANCEMENT WITH IN THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTAL

Age 21-30 6 2 8Row % 75 25 100

Column % 13.953 7.4074Age 31-40 7 4 11

Row% 63.636 36.364 100Column% 16.279 14.815Age 41-50 22 16 38

Row% 57.895 42.105 100Column% 51.163 59.259

Age 50 & onwards 8 5 13Row% 61.538 38.462 100

Column% 18.605 18.519Total 43 27 70

Row% 61.429 38.571 100Column% 100 100

The above table shows the level of engagement among employees between

the age group and the career growth & advancement in the organisation.

Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High & Low, which

score is 43 & 27 respectively i.e. 43 (61.429%) employees believes that the

engagement is high among employees & others 27 (38.571%) employees

believes that the engagement is low among employees in the organisation.

The 43 employees who believe the career growth & advancement in the

organisation is high, falls in the age group of the 21-30 are 6 (25%), 31-40 are

7 (16.667%), 41-50 are 22 (41.667%) and 50 & onwards are 8 (16.667%).

The 27 employees who believe the career growth & advancement in the

organisation is low, falls in the age group of the 21-30 are 2 (7.4074%), 31-40

are 4 (14.815%), 41-50 are 16 (59.259%) and 50 & onwards are 5 (18.519%).

TABLE 9

122

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EDUCATION

QUALIFICATION & THE EMPLOYEE’S ROLE IN THE ORGANISATION.

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALGraduate 18 17 35Row % 51.42857 48.571 100

Column % 46.15385 54.839Post Graduate 9 10 19

Row% 47.36842 52.632 100Column% 23.07692 32.258

Others 12 4 16Row% 75 25 100

Column% 30.76923 12.903Total 39 31 70

Row% 55.71429 44.286 100Column% 100 100

The above table shows the level of engagement among employees between

the education qualifications & the employee’s role in the organisation. Here,

the above table refines on the basis of the High & Low, whose score is 39 &

31 respectively i.e. 39 (55.71429%) employees believes that the engagement

is high among employees & others 31 (44.286%) employees believes that the

engagement is low among employees in the organisation.

The 39 employees who believe the employee’s role in the organisation is

high, falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 18 (46.15385%),

Post Graduate are 9 (23.07692%) and others are 12 (30.76923%).

The 31 employees who believe the employee’s role in the organisation is low,

falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 17 (54.839%), Post

Graduate are 10 (32.258%) and others are 4 (12.903%).

Table 10

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EDUCATION

QUALIFICATION & THE WORK ENVIOURMENT IN THE ORGANISATION:

123

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTAL

Graduate 13 22 35Row % 37.14286 62.857 100

Column % 52 48.889Post Graduate 5 14 19

Row% 26.31579 73.684 100Column% 20 31.111

Others 7 9 16Row% 43.75 56.25 100

Column% 28 20Total 25 45 70

Row% 35.71429 64.286 100Column% 100 100

The above table shows the level of engagement among employees between

the education qualifications & the work enviourment in the organisation. Here,

the above table refines on the basis of the High & Low, whose score is 25 &

45 respectively i.e. 25 (35.71429%) employees believes that the engagement

is high among employees & others 45 (64.286%) employees believes that the

engagement is low among employees in the organisation.

The 25 employees who believe the work enviourment in the organisation is

high, falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 13 (52%), Post

Graduate are 5 (20%) and others are 7 (28%).

The 31 employees who believe the work enviourment in the organisation is

low, falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 22 (48.889%),

Post Graduate are 14 (31.111%) and others are 9 (20%).

TABLE 11

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EDUCATION

QUALIFICATION & THE REWARDS IN THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTAL

Graduate 6 29 35Row % 17.14286 82.857 100

Column % 50 50Post Graduate 5 14 19

124

Row% 26.31579 73.684 100Column% 41.66667 24.138

Others 1 15 16Row% 6.25 93.75 100

Column% 8.333333 25.862Total 12 58 70

Row% 17.14286 82.857 100Column% 100 100

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the education qualifications & the rewards in the

organisation. Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High &

Low, which score is 12 & 58 respectively i.e. 12 (17.14286%) employees

believes that the engagement is high among employees & others 58

(82.857%) employees believes that the engagement is low among employees

in the organisation.

The 12 employees who believe the rewards in the organisation is high, falls in

the education qualification of; the Graduate are 6 (50%), Post Graduate are 5

(41.66667%) and others are 1 (8.333333%).

The 58 employees who believe the rewards in the organisation is low, falls in

the education qualification of; the Graduate are 29 (50%), Post Graduate are

14 (24.138%) and others are 15 (25.862%).

TABLE 12

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EDUCATION QUALIFICATION &

THE EMPLOYEES RELATIONSHIP WITH IMMIDIATE SUPERVISOR THE

ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALGraduate 22 13 35Row % 62.85714 37.143 100

125

Column % 55 43.333Post Graduate 11 8 19

Row% 57.89474 42.105 100Column% 27.5 26.667

Others 7 9 16Row% 43.75 56.25 100

Column% 17.5 30Total 40 30 70

Row% 57.14286 42.857 100Column% 100 100

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the education qualifications & the employee’s relationship

with immediate supervisor the organisation. Here, the above table refinement

is on the basis of the High & Low, which score is 40 & 30 respectively i.e. 40

(57.14286%) employees believes that the engagement is high among

employees & others 30 (42.857%) employees believes that the engagement

is low among employees in the organisation.

The 40 employees who believe the employee’s relationship with immediate

supervisor in the organisation is high, falls in the education qualification of; the

Graduate are 22 (55%), Post Graduate are 11 (27.5%) and others are 7

(17.5%).

The 30 employees who believe the employee’s relationship with immediate

supervisor in the organisation is low, falls in the education qualification of; the

Graduate are 13 (43.333%), Post Graduate are 8 (26.667%) and others are 9

(30%).

TABLE 13

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EDUCATION

QUALIFICATION & ORGANISATION PLANNING & LEADERSHIP WITH

THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTAL

126

Graduate 7 28 35Row % 20 80 100

Column % 38.88889 53.846

Post Graduate 8 11 19

Row% 42.10526 57.895 100Column% 44.44444 21.154

Others 3 13 16

Row% 18.75 81.25 100Column% 16.66667 25

Total 18 52 70Row% 25.71429 74.286 100

Column% 100 100

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the education qualifications & organization planning &

leadership. Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High &

Low, which score is 18 & 52 respectively i.e. 18 (25.71429%) employees

believes that the engagement is high among employees & others 52

(74.286%) employees believes that the engagement is low among employees

in the organisation.

The 18 employees who believe the organization planning & leadership in the

organisation is high, falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 7

(38.88889%), Post Graduate are 8 (44.44444%) and others are 3

(16.66667%).

The 52 employees who believe the organization planning & leadership in the

organisation is low, falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 28

(53.846%), Post Graduate are 11 (21.154%) and others are 13 (25%).

TABLE 14

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EDUCATION

QUALIFICATION & ORGANISATION CULTURE & COMMUNICATION

WITH THE ORGANISATION:

127

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALGraduate 21 14 35Row % 60 40 100

Column % 47.72727 53.846Post Graduate 13 6 19

Row% 68.42105 31.579 100Column% 29.54545 23.077

Others 10 6 16Row% 62.5 37.5 100

Column% 22.72727 23.077Total 44 26 70

Row% 62.85714 37.143 100Column% 100 100

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the education qualifications & organization culture &

communication. Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High &

Low, which score is 44 & 26 respectively i.e. 44 (62.85714%) employees

believes that the engagement is high among employees & others 26

(37.143%) employees believes that the engagement is low among employees

in the organisation.

The 44 employees who believe the organization planning & leadership in the

organisation is high, falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 21

(47.72727%), Post Graduate are 13 (29.54545%) and others are 10

(22.72727%).

The 26 employees who believe the organization planning & leadership in the

organisation is low, falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 14

(53.846%), Post Graduate are 6 (23.077%) and others are 6 (23.077%).

TABLE 15

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EDUCATION

QUALIFICATION & TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT WITH THE

ORGANISATION:

128

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTAL

Graduate 12 23 35Row % 34.28571 65.714 100

Column % 50 50

Post Graduate 8 11 19

Row% 42.10526 57.895 100Column% 33.33333 23.913

Others 4 12 16Row% 25 75 100

Column% 16.66667 26.087Total 24 46 70

Row% 34.28571 65.714 100Column% 100 100

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the education qualifications & training & development.

Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High & Low, which

score is 24 & 46 respectively i.e. 24 (34.28571%) employees believes that the

engagement is high among employees & others 46 (65.714%) employees

believes that the engagement is low among employees in the organisation.

The 24 employees who believe the organization training & development in the

organisation is high, falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 12

(50%), Post Graduate are 8 (33.33333%) and others are 4 (16.66667%).

The 26 employees who believe the organization training & development in the

organisation is low, falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 23

(50%), Post Graduate are 11 (23.913%) and others are 12 (26.087%).

TABLE 16

129

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EDUCATION

QUALIFICATION & CAREER GROWTH AND ADVANCEMENT WITH IN

THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALGraduate 21 14 35Row % 60 40 100

Column % 47.72727 53.846Post Graduate 14 5 19

Row% 73.68421 26.316 100Column% 31.81818 19.231

Others 9 7 16Row% 56.25 43.75 100

Column% 20.45455 26.923Total 44 26 70

Row% 62.85714 37.143 100Column% 100 100

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the education qualifications & career growth &

advancement. Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High &

Low, which score is 44 & 26 respectively i.e.. 44 (62.85714%) employees

believe that the engagement is high among employees & others 26 (37.143%)

employees believe that the engagement is low among employees in the

organisation.

The 44 employees who believe the organization training & development in the

organisation is high, falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 21

(47.72727%), Post Graduate are 14 (31.81818%) and others are 9

(20.45455%).

The 26 employees who believe the organization training & development in the

organisation is low, falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 14

(53.846%), Post Graduate are 5 (19.231%) and others are 7 (26.923%).

TABLE 17

130

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIENCE & THE

EMPLOYEE’S ROLE IN THE ORGANISATION.

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALExperience <=20 18 24 42

Row % 42.857143 57.1429 100Column % 46.153846 77.4194  

Experience > 21 21 7 28Row% 75 25 100

Column% 53.846154 22.5806  Total 39 31 70

Row% 55.714286 44.2857 100Column% 100 100 0

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the employees experience & employee role in the

organisation. Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High &

Low, which score is 39 & 31 respectively i.e. 39 (55.714286%) employees

believes that the engagement is high among employees & others 31

(44.2857%) employees believes that the engagement is low among

employees in the organisation.

The 39 employees who believe the employee role in the organisation is high,

falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21 years of experience are

18 (46.153846%) and more than 21 years others are 21 (53.846154%).

The 31 employees who believe the employee role in the organisation is low,

falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21 years of experience are

24 (77.4194%) and more than 21 years others are 7 (22.5806%).

TABLE 18

131

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIENCE & THE WORK

ENVIOURMENT IN THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALExperience <=20 20 22 42

Row % 47.619048 52.381 100Column % 66.666667 55  

Experience 21 onwards 10 18 28Row% 35.714286 64.2857 100

Column% 33.333333 45  Total 30 40 70

Row% 42.857143 57.1429 100Column% 100 100 0

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the employees experience & work enviourment in the

organisation. Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High &

Low, which score is 30 & 40 respectively i.e.. 30 (42.857143%) employees

believe that the engagement is high among employees & others 40

(57.1429%) employees believe that the engagement is low among employees

in the organisation.

The 30 employees who believe the work enviourment in the organisation is

high, falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21 years of experience

are 20 (66.666667%) and more than 21 years others are 10 (33.333333%).

The 40 employees who believe the work enviourment in the organisation is

low, falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21 years of experience

are 22 (55%) and more than 21 years others are18 (45%).

TABLE 19

132

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIENCE & THE

REWARDS IN THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTAL

Experience <=20 8 34 42Row % 19.047619 80.9524 100

Column % 66.666667 58.6207  Experience 21 onwards 4 24 28

Row% 14.285714 85.7143 100Column% 33.333333 41.3793  

Total 12 58 70Row% 17.142857 82.8571 100

Column% 100 100 0

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the employees experience & the rewards systems in the

organisation. Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High &

Low, which score is 12 & 58 respectively i.e.. 12 (17.142857%) employees

believe that the engagement is high among employees & others 58

(82.8571%) employees believe that the engagement is low among employees

in the organisation.

The 12 employees who believe the reward system in the organisation is high,

falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21 years of experience are 8

(66.666667%) and more than 21 years others are 4 (33.333333%).

The 58 employees who believe the reward system in the organisation is low,

falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21 years of experience are

34 (58.6207%) and more than 21 years others are 24 (41.3793%).

TABLE 20

133

HOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIECE & THE

EMPLOYEES RELATIONSHIP IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR WITH THE

ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALExperience <=20 11 31 42

Row % 26.190476 73.8095 100Column % 61.111111 59.6154  

Experience 21 onwards 7 21 28Row% 25 75 100

Column% 38.888889 40.3846  Total 18 52 70

Row% 25.714286 74.2857 100

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the employees experience & the employee relationship

with immediate supervisor in the organisation. Here, the above table

refinement is on the basis of the High & Low, which score is 18 & 52

respectively i.e. 18 (25.714286%) employees believes that the engagement is

high among employees & others 52 (74.2857%) employees believes that the

engagement is low among employees in the organisation.

The 18 employees who believe the employee relationship with immediate

supervisor in the organisation is high, falls in the experience of; greater than &

equal to 21 years of experience are 11 (61.111111%) and more than 21 years

others are 7 (38.888889%).

The 52 employees who believe the reward system in the organisation is low,

falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21 years of experience are

31 (59.6154%) and more than 21 years others are 21 (40.3846%).

TABLE 21

134

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIECE &

ORGANISATION PLANNING & LEADERSHIP WITH THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALExperience <=20 11 31 42

Row % 26.190476 73.8095 100Column % 61.111111 59.6154  

Experience 21 onwards 7 21 28Row% 25 75 100

Column% 38.888889 40.3846  Total 18 52 70

Row% 25.714286 74.2857 100

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the employees experience & the organisation planning &

leadership. Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High &

Low, which score is 18 & 52 respectively i.e. 18 (25.714286%) employees

believes that the engagement is high among employees & others 52

(74.2857%) employees believes that the engagement is low among

employees in the organisation.

The 18 employees who believe the organisation planning & leadership i is

high, falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21 years of experience

are 11 (61.111111%) and more than 21 years others are 7 (38.888889%).

The 58 employees who believe the organisation planning & leadership is low,

falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21 years of experience are

31 (59.6154%) and more than 21 years others are 21 (40.3846%).

TABLE 22

135

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIECE &

ORGANISATION CULTURE & COMMUNICATION WITH IN THE

ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALExperience <=20 23 19 42

Row % 54.761905 45.2381 100Column % 52.272727 73.0769  

Experience 21 onwards 21 7 28Row% 75 25 100

Column% 47.727273 26.9231  Total 44 26 70

Row% 62.857143 37.1429 100Column% 100 100 0

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the employees experience & the culture &

communication in the organisation. Here, the above table refinement is on the

basis of the High & Low, which score is 44 & 26 respectively i.e. 44

(62.857143%) employees believes that the engagement is high among

employees & others 26 (37.1429%) employees believes that the engagement

is low among employees in the organisation.

The 44 employees who believe the culture & communication in the

organisation is high, falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21

years of experience are 23 (52.272727%) and more than 21 years others are

21 (47.727273%).

The 26 employees who believe the reward system in the organisation is low,

falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21 years of experience are

19 (73.0769%) and more than 21 years others are 7 (26.9231%).

TABLE 23

136

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIECE & TRAINING &

DEVELOPMENT WITH THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALExperience <=20 12 30 42

Row % 28.571429 71.4286 100Column % 50 65.2174  

Experience 21 onwards 12 16 28Row% 42.857143 57.1429 100

Column% 50 34.7826  Total 24 46 70

Row% 34.285714 65.7143 100Column% 100 100 0

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the employees experience & the training & development

in the organisation. Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the

High & Low, which score is 24 & 46 respectively i.e. 24 (34.285714%)

employees believes that the engagement is high among employees & others

46 (65.7143%) employees believes that the engagement is low among

employees in the organisation.

The 24 employees who believe the training & development in the organisation

is high, falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21 years of

experience are 12 (50%) and more than 21 years others are 12 (50%).

The 46 employees who believe the training & development in the organisation

is low, falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21 years of

experience are 30 (65.2174%) and more than 21 years others are 16

34.7826%).

TABLE 24

137

SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIECE & CAREER

GROWTH AND ADVANCEMENT WITH IN THE ORGANISATION:

PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTALExperience <=20 26 16 42

Row % 61.904762 38.0952 100Column % 59.090909 57.1429  

Experience 21 onwards 18 12 28Row% 64.285714 42.8571 107.14

Column% 40.909091 42.8571  Total 42 28 70

Row% 62.857143 37.153957 100Column% 100 100 0

The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among

employees between the employees experience & the career growth &

development in the organisation. Here, the above table refinement is on the

basis of the High & Low, which score is 44 & 28 respectively i.e. 12

(62.857143%) employees believes that the engagement is high among

employees & others 28 (37.153957%) employees believes that the

engagement is low among employees in the organisation.

The 42 employees who believe the career growth & development in the

organisation is high, falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21

years of experience are 26 (59.090909%) and more than 21 years others are

18 (40.909091%).

The 28 employees who believe the career growth & development in the

organisation is low, falls in the experience of; greater than & equal to 21 years

of experience are 16 (57.1429%) and more than 21 years others are 12

(42.8571%).

TABLE 25

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENTS WITH RELATION TO THEIR PARAMETERS:

138

PARTICULARS ENGAGED NOT

ENGAGEDTOTAL

Employee role in the organisation 40 30 70Row % 57.142857 42.857143 100

Column % 34.188034 18.404908  Work Enviourment 25 45 70

Row% 35.714286 64.285714 100Column% 21.367521 27.607362  

Rewards 12 58 70

Row% 17.142857 82.857143 100

Column% 10.25641 35.582822  

Employee Relationship With Immediate Supervisor 40 30 70Row% 57.142857 42.857143 100

Column% 34.188034 18.404908 25Organisation Planning & Leadership 18 52 70

Row % 25.714 74.286 100Column % 13.846 34.667  

Organisation Culture & Communication 44 26 70Row% 62.857 37.143 100

Column% 33.846 17.333  Training & Development 24 46 70

Row% 34.286 65.714 100Column% 18.462 30.667  

Career Growth & Advancement 44 26 70Row% 62.857 37.143 100

Column% 33.846 17.333  Total 247 323 560Row% 44.107143 57.678571 100

Column% 100 100TOTAL ENGAGEMENT OF EMPLOYEE 30 40 70 

The above table shows the overall engagement of the employees with

comparing to their parameters. The inference from the above table is 30

(44.107143) employees are engaged & rest of 40 (57.678571) are not

engaged in the organisation.

CHAPTER 5

FINDING, CONCLUSIONS & SUGGESTIONS

139

EMPLOYEE ROLE IN THE ORGANISATION

Employee like the work what they do:

Majority (92.85%) of the employees agrees that they like the work which they

have assigned & rest (7.15%) of the employees disagree that they like the

work which has assigned to them.

Employee has given enough authority to make decisions which they

need to make:

Majority (85.70%) of the employees agree that they have given the enough

authority to make decisions what they need to make & (14.30%) of the

employees disagrees that they have given the enough authority to make

decisions what they need to make.

Employees believe their job is secure:

Majority (88.60%) of the employees agree that they believe that their job is

secure & the rest (11.40%) of the employees agrees that they believe that

their job is insecure.

Employee’s job makes good use of their skills and abilities.

Majority (94.28%) of the employees agree that their job makes proper use of

their skills and abilities & the rest (05.72%) of the employees disagrees that

their job makes proper use of their skills and abilities.

Employees have a clear understanding of their job role.

Majority (91.78%) of the employees agree that they have clear understanding

of their job role & the rest (08.22%) of the employees disagrees that they have

clear understanding of their job role.

Employee understands the importance of their role to the success of the

organization.

Majority (92.85%) of the employees agree that they understand the

importance of their role to the success of the organization & the rest (07.15%)

140

of the employees disagrees that they understands the importance of their role

to the success of the organization.

WORK ENVIOURMENT

Employees believe that their work area is adequately clean & safe.

Majority (95.71%) of the employees agree that their work area is adequately

clean & safe & the rest (4.29%) of the employees disagrees that their work

area is adequately clean & safe.

REWARDS

Employee receives a fair return (financial rewards, job satisfaction etc)

from the organization for the efforts employee give in their job.

Majority (91.42%) of the employees agree that they receive a fair return

(financial rewards, job satisfaction etc) from the organization for the efforts

they give in their job & the rest (8.58%) of the employees disagrees that they

receives a fair return (financial rewards, job satisfaction etc) from the

organization for the efforts they give in their job.

EMPLYEES RELATIONSHIP WITH IMMIDIATE SUPERVISOR

Employee supervisor treats them with respect.

All of the employees agree that their supervisor treats them with respect.

Employee supervisor handles their work-related & personal issues

satisfactorily.

Majority (95.69%) of the employees agree that their supervisor handles their

work-related & personal issues satisfactorily & the rest (4.31%) of the

employees disagrees that their supervisor handles their work-related &

personal issues satisfactorily.

Employee supervisor acknowledges when they do their work well.

141

Majority (9714%) of the employees agree that their supervisor acknowledges

when they do their work well & the rest (2.86%) of the employees disagrees

that their supervisor acknowledges when they do their work well.

Employee supervisor is open to hearing their opinion or feedback.

Majority (98.57%) of the employees agree that their supervisor is open to

hearing their opinion or feedback & the rest (1.43%) of the employees

disagrees that their supervisor is open to hearing their opinion or feedback.

Employee supervisor helps them develop to their fullest potential.

Majority (97.14%) of the employees agree that their supervisor helps them

develop to their fullest potential & the rest (2.86%) of the employees

disagrees that their supervisor helps them develop to their fullest potentials.

ORGANISATION PLANING & LEADERSHIP

There is adequate planning of corporate objectives.

Majority (94.28%) of the employees agree that there is adequate planning of

corporate objectives & the rest (5.72%) of the employees disagrees that here

is adequate planning of corporate objectives.

There is adequate follow-through of corporate objectives.

Majority (91.43%) of the employees agree that there is adequate follow-

through of corporate objectives & the rest (8.57%) of the employees disagrees

that here is adequate follow-through of corporate objectives.

There is adequate planning of departmental objectives.

Majority (91.43%) of the employees agree that there is adequate planning of

departmental objectives & the rest (8.57%) of the employees disagrees that

here is adequate planning of departmental objectives.

There is adequate follow-through of departmental objectives.

142

Majority (92.86%) of the employees agree that there is adequate follow-

through of departmental objectives & the rest (7.14%) of the employees

disagrees that here is adequate follow-through of departmental objectives.

ORGANISATION CULTURE & COMMUNICATION

Employee has a good understanding of how organization is doing

financially.

Majority (92.85%) of the employees agree that they have a good

understanding of how organization is doing financially. & the rest (7.14%) of

the employees disagrees that they have a good understanding of how

organization is doing financially.

Organization gives employee enough recognition for work that is done

well.

Majority (94.28%) of the employees agrees that organization gives employee

enough recognition for work that is done well & the rest (7.14%) of the

employees disagrees that organization gives employee enough recognition for

work that is done well.

Employee believes there is a spirit of cooperation within organization.

Majority (94.28%) of the employees agrees that there is a spirit of cooperation

within organization & the rest (8.57%) of the employees disagrees that there

is a spirit of cooperation within organization.

Employee like the people whom they work with in organization .

Majority (92.86%) of the employees agrees that they like the people whom

they work with in organization & the rest (7.14%) of the employees disagrees

that they like the people whom they work with in organization.

TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT

143

Organization provides as much initial & ongoing training as employee

need.

Majority (84.28%) of the employees agrees that organization provides as

much initial & ongoing training as employee need & the rest (15.72%) of the

employees disagrees that organization provides as much initial & ongoing

training as employee need.

Employee trusts what the company tells them & takes to advance their

career.

Majority (84.28%) of the employees agrees that they trusts what the company

tells them & takes to advance their career & the rest (12.86%) of the

employees disagrees that they trusts what the company tells them & takes to

advance their career.

Organization provides training or experiences to help them to explore

other possible opportunities within the company.

Majority (83.86%) of the employees agrees that they trusts what the company

tells them & takes to advance their career & the rest (16.14%) of the

employees disagrees that they trusts what the company tells them & takes to

advance their career.

CAREER GROWTH AND ADVANCEMENT

This organization takes a genuine interest in the well-being of

employees.

Majority (88.57%) of the employees agrees that organization takes a genuine

interest in the well being of employees & the rest (11.43%) of the employees

disagrees that organization takes a genuine interest in the well being of

employees.

There are opportunities for employee to advance his career in this

organization.

Majority (91.43%) of the employees agrees that there are opportunities for

employee to advance his career in this organization & the rest (8.57%) of the

144

employees disagrees that there are opportunities for employee to advance his

career in this organization.

Employee receives effective support to develop your skills and talents.

Majority (94.38%) of the employees agrees that they receive effective support

to develop your skills and talents & the rest (5.72%) of the employees

disagrees that they receives effective support to develop your skills and

talents.

It is clear to employee how to advance his careers in this organization.

Majority (94.38%) of the employees agrees that it is clear to them, how to

advance their careers in this organization & the rest (5.72%) of the employees

disagrees that It is clear to them, how to advance their careers in this

organization.

RELATIONSHIP WITH AGE:

The employee role in the organisation: Majority (55.7142857%)

employees believe that there high relationship between the age of the

employees & role of the employees in the organisation & others 31

(44.2857143%) employees believe that there high relationship between

the age of the employees & role of the employees in the organisation.

The work enviourment in the organisation: 27 (38.571429%)

employees believe that there high relationship between the age of the

employees & work enviourment in the organisation & others 43

(61.429%) employees believe that there high relationship between the

age of the employees & work enviourment in the organisation.

The rewards systems in the organisation: 12 (17.143%) employees

believe that there is a high relationship between the age & reward

system in the organisation & others 58 (17.143%) employees believes

that there is a low relationship between the age & reward system in the

organisation.

145

The employee’s relationship with immediate supervisor. 35 (50%)

employees believe that there is high relationship among employees

age and the relationship with immediate supervisor & others 35 (50%)

employees believes that there is low relationship among employees

age and the relationship with immediate supervisor.

Organisation planning & leadership with the organisation: 18

(25.714%) employees believe that there is high relationship between

the employee’s age and the organization planning & leadership &

others 52 (74.286%) employees believe that there is low relationship

between the employee’s age and the organization planning &

leadership.

Organisation culture & communication with the organisation: 43

(61.429%) employees believe that there is high relationship between

the employee’s age and culture & communication of organisation &

others 27 (38.571%) employees believes that there is low relationship

between the employee’s age and culture & communication of

organisation.

Training & development with the organisation: 24 (34.286%)

employees believe that there is high relationship between the

employee’s age and culture & communication of organisation & others

46 (65.714%) employees believe that there is low relationship between

the employee’s age and culture & communication of organisation.

Career growth and advancement with in the organisation: 43

(61.429%) employees believe that there is high relationship between

the employee’s age and career growth & advancement with in the

organisation & others 27 (38.571%) employees believe that there is low

relationship between the employee’s age and career growth &

advancement with in the organisation.

RELATIONSHIP WITH EDUCATION QUALIFICATION:

The employee’s role in the organisation: 39 (55.71429%)

employees believe that there is high relationship between the

146

employee’s education qualification and employee role with in the

organisation & others 31 (44.286%) employees believe that there is low

relationship between the employee’s education qualification and

employee role with in the organisation with in the organisation.

The work enviourment in the organisation: 25 (35.71429%)

employees believe that there is high relationship between the

employee’s education qualification and work enviourment with in the

organisation & others 45 (64.286%) employees believe that there is low

relationship between employee’s education qualification and work

enviourment with in the organisation.

The Rewards in the Organisation: 12 (17.14286%) employees

believe that there is high relationship between the employee’s

education qualification and rewards in the organisation & others 58

(82.857%) employees believe that there is low relationship between

employee’s education qualification and rewards in the organisation.

The employee’s relationship with immediate supervisor the

organisation: 40 (57.14286%) employees believe that there is high

relationship between the employee’s education qualification and

employee’s relationship with immediate supervisor in the organisation

& others 30 (42.857%) employees believe that there is low relationship

between the employee’s education qualification and employee’s

relationship with immediate supervisor in the organisation.

Organisation planning & leadership with the organisation: 18

(25.714%) employees believe that there is high relationship between

the employee’s age and the organization planning & leadership &

others 52 (74.286%) employees believe that there is low relationship

between the employee’s age and the organization planning &

leadership.

Organisation culture & communication with the organisation: 44

(62.85714%) employees believe that there is high relationship between

the education qualification and organization culture & communication &

others 26 (37.143%) employees believe that there is low relationship

147

between the education qualification and organization culture &

communication.

Training & development with in the organisation: 24 (34.28571%)

employees believe that there is high relationship between the

education qualification and training & development & others 46

(65.714%) employees believe that there is high relationship between

the education qualification and training & development.

Career growth and advancement with in the organisation: 44

(62.85714%) employees believe that there is high relationship between

the education qualification and career growth & advancement & others

26 (37.143%) employees believe that there is low relationship between

the education qualification and career growth & advancement.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIENCES:

The employee’s role in the organisation: 39 (55.71429%)

employees believe that employees believe that there is high

relationship between the employee’s experience and employee role

with in the organisation & others 31 (44.286%) employees believe that

there is low relationship between the employee’s education

qualification and employee role with in the organisation.

The work enviourment in the organisation: 30 (42.857143%)

employees believe that there is high relationship between the

employee’s experience and work enviourment with in the organisation

& others 40 (57.1429%) employees believe that there is low

relationship between employee’s experience and work enviourment

with in the organisation.

The Rewards in the Organisation: 2 (17.142857%) employees

believe that there is high relationship between the employee’s

experience and rewards in the organisation & others 58 (82.857%)

employees believe that there is low relationship between employee’s

experience and rewards in the organisation.

The employee’s relationship with immediate supervisor the

organisation: 8 (25.714286%) employees believe that there is high

148

relationship between the employee’s experience and employee’s

relationship with immediate supervisor in the organisation & others 52

(74.2857%) employees believe that there is low relationship between

the employee’s experience and employee’s relationship with immediate

supervisor in the organisation.

Organisation planning & leadership with the organisation: 18

(25.714%) employees believe that there is high relationship between

the employee’s age and the organization planning & leadership &

others 52 (74.286%) employees believe that there is low relationship

between the employee’s age and the organization planning &

leadership.

Organisation culture & communication with the organisation: 8

(25.714286%)) employees believe that there is high relationship

between the experience and organization culture & communication &

others 52 (74.2857%) employees believe that there is low relationship

between the experience and organization culture & communication.

Training & development with in the organisation: 44 (62.857143%)

employees believe that there is high relationship between the

experience and training & development & others 26 (37.1429%)

employees believe that there is high relationship between the

experience and training & development.

Career growth and advancement with in the organisation: 24

(34.285714%) employees believe that there is high relationship

between the experience and career growth & advancement & others 46

(65.7143%) employees believe that there is low relationship between

the experience and career growth & advancement.

CONCLUSION

There is straight relationship between the employee like their work &

employee engagement. The higher the likeliness of the work by the

employee, higher will be the engagement towards the work.

149

There is straight relationship between the employee who have given

the enough authority to make needful decision at workplace &

employee engagement. The higher the authority to make needful

decision at workplace by the employee, higher will be the engagement

towards the work.

There is straight relationship between the employee security of job &

employee engagement. The higher the security of job of the employee,

higher will be the engagement towards the work.

There is straight relationship between the employee jobs makes proper

use of their skills and abilities & employee engagement. The higher the

use of their skills and abilities at job, higher will be the engagement

towards the work.

There is straight relationship between the employee job role &

employee engagement. The higher the clear understanding of the job

role by the employee, higher will be the engagement towards the work.

There is straight relationship between the understanding of the

employee’s job worthiness & the employee engagement. The higher

the understanding of the employee’s job worthiness, the higher will be

the level of employee engagement.

There is straight relationship between the work enviourment & the

employee engagement. The higher the work enviourment is clean &

safe, higher will be the engagement of employee in organisation.

There is straight relationship between the rewards & the employee

engagement. The higher the rewards, the higher will be the

engagement of employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between the supervisor treat them with

respect & the employee engagement. The higher the respect among

the supervisor and subordinates, the higher will be the engagement of

employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between the supervisor handles their

work-related & personal issues satisfactorily & the employee

engagement. The higher the involvement of the supervisor in work

related and personal issues of the subordinates, the higher will be the

engagement of employee in the organisation.

150

There is straight relationship between the supervisor acknowledges

employees work well & the employee engagement. The higher the

supervisor acknowledges employees work well, the higher will be the

engagement of employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between the supervisor is open to hearing

employee opinion or feedback & the employee engagement. The

higher the supervisor is open to hearing employee opinion or feedback,

the higher will be the engagement of employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between the supervisor helps employees

develop to their fullest potential & the employee engagement. The

higher the supervisor helps employee develop to their fullest potential,

the higher will be the engagement of employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between the planning of corporate

objectives & the employee engagement. The higher the planning of

corporate objectives, the higher will be the engagement of employee in

the organisation.

There is straight relationship between the adequate follow-through of

corporate objectives & the employee engagement. The higher the

adequate follow-through of corporate objectives, the higher will be the

engagement of employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between the planning of departmental

objectives & the employee engagement. The higher the planning of

departmental objectives, the higher will be the engagement of

employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between the adequate follow-through of

corporate objectives & the employee engagement. The higher the

adequate follow-through of corporate objectives, the higher will be the

engagement of employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between the adequate follow-through of

departmental objectives & the employee engagement. The higher the

adequate follow-through of departmental objectives, the higher will be

the engagement of employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between employees have a good

understanding of organization is doing financially & the employee

151

engagement. The higher the employees have a good understanding of

organization is doing financially, the higher will be the engagement of

employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between employees are recognition for

work that is done well & the employee engagement. The higher the

employees are recognition for work that is done well, the higher will be

the engagement of employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between the spirit of cooperation within

organization & the employee engagement. The higher the spirit of

cooperation within organization, the higher will be the engagement of

employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between the like the employee likeness of

people whom they work & the employee engagement. The higher the

employee likeness of people whom they work, the higher will be the

engagement of employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between the organization provides as

much initial & ongoing training as employee need & the employee

engagement. The higher organization provides as much initial &

ongoing training as employee need, the higher will be the engagement

of employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between employee trusts what the

company tells them & the employee engagement. The higher the

employee trusts what the company tells them, the higher will be the

engagement of employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between employee trusts what the

company tells them & takes to advance their career & the employee

engagement. The higher the employee trusts what the company tells

them & takes to advance their career, the higher will be the

engagement of employee in the organisation.

There is straight relationship between organization takes a genuine

interest in the well being of employees & the employee engagement.

The higher the organization takes a genuine interest in the well being

of employees, the higher will be the engagement of employee in the

organisation.

152

There is straight relationship between opportunities for employee to

advance his career in this organization & the employee engagement.

The higher the opportunities for employee to advance his career in this

organization, the higher will be the engagement of employee in the

organisation.

There is straight relationship between employee receive effective

support to develop your skills and talents & the employee engagement.

The higher the employee receives effective support to develop your

skills and talents, the higher will be the engagement of employee in the

organisation.

There is straight relationship between the advancement their careers in

this organization & the employee engagement. The higher the

advancement their careers in this organization, the higher will be the

engagement of employee in the organisation.

SUGGESTIONS

From the over all findings, there are only 30 (44.107143%) employees are

engaged to their work in the organisation & rest 40 (57.678571%)

employees are not engage to their work in the organisation. There are

some loopholes while assessing the employee engagement in Transpek

Ltd. In some of the parameters, the employees have given negative

responses. To overcome the this situation & get more employee

engaged, following strategies should be work out in the organisation;

EFFECTIVE WORK ENVIOURMENT

153

There are only 25 employees are engaged from the viewpoint of work

enviourment & rest 45 are not engaged. To engage the employee in this

context, there is need to form the effective work enviourment in the

organisation. The measure steps to be taken consider for effective work

enviourment is:

Employee’s physical working conditions should be good in the

organisation.

Employee’s general work area should keep adequately heated/cooled.

Employee general work area should keep adequately clean.

There is adequate noise control to allow employees to focus on their

work.

Employees should feel physically safe in their work environment.

Above all the point should be implemented at the workplace to engage the

employee in the organisation, so that the employee involvement towards work

should be physically as well as emotionally.

DESIGN THE EFFECTIVE REWARDS SYSTEM

There are only 12 employees are engaged from the viewpoint of reward & rest

45 are not engaged. To engage the employee in this context, there is need to

form the effective reward system in the organisation. The measure steps to be

taken consider for effective reward system is:

There should be effective reward system developed and implement in

the organisation, so that the reward/ pay are properly disturbed

between the work force in the organisation.

The organisation should transparent at the reward system in the

organisation.

The reward system should be linked with the performance of

employees. It will be encourage the true performer employees in the

organisation & it will also lead to enhance the productivity of the low

performance employees.

The reward system should be directly linked with the job satisfaction of

the employees.

154

Above all point should be implement in the organisation, so that, there is less

or no biasness among the subordinate, peers & supervisor & ultimately, the

organisation productivity and effectiveness will be enhance.

ORGANISATION PLANNING & LEADERSHIP

There are only 18 employees are engaged from the viewpoint of organisation

planning & leadership & rest 52 are not engaged. To engage the employee in

this context, there is need to form the effective organisation planning &

leadership. The measure steps to be taken consider for effective organisation

planning & leadership is:

Make Employees understand the long-term strategy of this

organization: The organisation should make employee aware about the

vision & mission of an organisation. By informing them the long term

goals, there is a need of alignment of organisation goals with the

individual goals.

The leaders of this organization care about their employees well being:

this shows the organisational leadership. There is a need to adapt the

parental leadership as well as the democratic leadership in the

organisation. More the organization will involve employees; more will

be the employee engagement at work place and employees will have

confidence in the leadership of this organization.

Corporate & Departmental objective: There is adequate planning of

corporate objectives and follow-through of corporate objectives. The

departmental objectives are in the alignment of an corporate objective

& there is adequate follow-through of departmental objectives

Above all point should be implement in the organisation, so that; there is more

transparency among the organization. It will lead the development of the

career of employee in the organisation.

TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT

There are only 24 employees are engaged from the viewpoint of training &

development & rest 46 are not engaged. To engage the employee in this

155

context, there is need to form the effective training & development system.

The measure steps to be taken consider for effective training & development

system is;

Organization should provide initial training & ongoing training : the

organisation should provide the initial training to the new employees,

so that they will well verse and clear with the organisational objective

and the practices adopted. The organization also regularly works for

the objective of the employees. It will help to reduce the gap between

the employee’s job responsibility and job skills requires. By doing this,

employee will feels that there is room for advancement for them in the

organisation.

Organization should provide enough information, equipment and

resources which employee needed to do their job well: As employees

should be given the required information, equipment and resources to

their job well.

Above all point should be implement in the organisation, so that; there is more

transparency among the organization. The training & development function

should achieve the organizational, individual, departmental and lastly the

societal objective.

There are some parameters where majority of the employees response

positively for employee engagement. They are:

The role of the employee in the organization.

The relationship of individual with immediate supervisor.

Organisation Culture & Communication

Career growth & Advancement.

To enhance the level of employee engagement in the organisation, there is a

need to emphasis the issues like work enviourment, rewards, relationship of

the employees, organisation planning & leadership & training & development.

By implementing the above strategies, the company can engage their

workforce.

156

BIBILOGRAPHY

JOURNALS AND WHITEPAPER REFERRED:

Scottish Executive Social Research (May 2007): A Review of Literature

Employee Engagement In The Public Sector By Dtz Consulting & Research.

Richard s. Wellins, Ph.D., Paul Bernthal, PhD: A monograph on Employee

engagement: The key to realizing Competitive advantage form Development

dimensions international.

An Independent Mel Crum Research Report: Employee Engagement to build

a high-performance workforce in the year 2005.

157

Theresa m. Welbourne (spring 2007): Employee engagement: beyond the fad

and into the executive suite.

A Quantitative Analysis of Effective Engagement Strategies: Driving

Performance and Retention through Employee Engagement, Corporate

Leadership Council.

Andrew Reimer (2006): “Employee Engagement: The key to Council

Performance”, Principal LG Performance Tasmania.

Amanda Ferguson: Employee engagement’: does it exist, and if so, how does

it relate to performance, other constructs and individual differences.

Accord management systems (2004) – Employee Engagement Strategy: A

strategy of analysis to move from employee satisfaction to engagement.

Buckingham, M., Coffman, C. (1999). First, Break All the Rules: What the

World’s Greatest Managers do differently. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Graeme Cohen & Nicholas G Higgins, Journal of Human Capital Management

Volume 1 (2007), Employee Engagement: the secret of highly performing

organization.

Beverly Little & Philip Little, (Volume 10, No. 1, 2006) Western Carolina

University, Employee Engagement: Conceptual Issues: Journal of

Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict.

Jennifer D. Kaufman, Dell, Inc., Alan D. Mead, PAQ Services, Inc., Tom

Rauzi, Dell, Inc., John O. DeVille, Dell, Inc. :An Empirical Investigation of the

Stability of Employee Engagement.

Glenn Kelso - Career Management Ethos (June 19, 2007): Tactics for

Engagement Toolkit: Strategies for Increasing Employee Engagement.

158

Robert J. Vance, PhD - Employee Engagement and Commitment A guide to

understanding, measuring and increasing engagement in your organization.

Hewitt Associates (2004): Employee Engagement Higher at Double-Digit

Growth Companies: Double-Digit Growth and Engagement.

By Gregory P. Smith: Engaged Employees Help Boost the Bottom Line.

Nicole Jenkinson, 2008: Individual Approach Drives Employee Engagement.

Robinson D, Perryman S, Hayday S, April 2004: The Drivers of Employee

Engagement

BOOK REFERRED:

Employee Engagement: Trends and Cases: Edited By K Sangeeta and Chitra

Mukunnan.

WEBPAGE REFERRED:

www.haygroup.com

www.hrguru.com

www.hrcite.com

www.hr.com

www.askhrd.com

www.towersperrin.com

159

www.chrm.com

www.wikipdiea.com

Date of Respondent filled Questionnaire: _________ Respondent No.____

Researcher: Hemal Shah Research Guide: Dr. Leena Mehta

A STUDY ON THE PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEES REGARDING

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT*

Dear Respondent,

You are requested to respond to the statements in the following

questionnaire. This questionnaire is run to validate Employee engagement in

an organization. On the following pages you will find several kinds of

statements. Instructions are given for all set of questions. Please follow the

instructions carefully. Please ensure that you respond to every question. The

right answer to any question is your frank and truthful response. Your

160

individual identity will be treated in “strict confidential” and will only be used

for research purposes. Your response would be highly appreciated.

(A) PERSONAL INFORMATION

1. Name of the respondent: ___________I (Optional)2. Age:

21-30 ( )

31-40 ( )

41-50 ( )

51 & above. ( )

3. Gender: _______

4. Education qualification:

Graduation: ( ) Specific: Post-graduation: ( ) Specific:

(B) FAMILY INFORMATION :

5. Type of the Family

Joint ( )

Nuclear ( )

6. No. of Members in Family ___

a. dependent____

b. earning______

7. Children:

Son/s age _____

Daughter/s age: ______ _

(C) JOB PROFILE :

8. Department: _____________9. Designation: _____________

10. Work experience:

Total years in this organization: ________years

Total years of service: ________________years

INSTRUCTIONS:

161

The questions are divided into above mentioned parameters, and each

question has four options.

Strongly Agree SA

Agree A

Disagree D

Strongly Disagree SD

Respondent are required to select any one option from the available 4 Rating

Scale options:

*SOURCE OF QUESTIIONAIRE:

The questionnaire is referred from Engagement Survey done by Best Company survey

(BCG) in 2008 & Gallup study.

WHAT DO I GET AS AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE?

(G) EMPLOYEES ROLE IN ORGANISATION: SD D A SA

1 I like the type of work that I do.

2I am given enough authority to make decisions I need to

make.

3 I believe my job is secure.

4 My job makes good use of my skills and abilities.

5 I have a clear understanding of my job role.

6I understand the importance of my role to the success of

the organization.

(H) WORK ENVIRONMENT: SD D A SA

7 My work area is adequately clean & safe.

162

8There is adequate noise control to allow me to focus on

my work.

(I) REWARDS: SD D A SA

9I receive a fair return (financial rewards, job satisfaction

etc) from the organization for the efforts I give in my job.

WHAT DO I GIVE TO THE ORGANISATION?

(J)EMPLOYEES RELATIONSHIP WITH IMMEDIATE

SUPERVISOR:SD D A SA

10 My supervisor treats me with respect.

11My supervisor handles my work-related & personal issues

satisfactorily.

12 My supervisor acknowledges when I do my work well.

13 My supervisor is open to hearing my opinion or feedback.

14 My supervisor helps me develop to my fullest potential.

BONDING WITH ORGANIGANISATION?

(K) ORGANISATION PLANNING & LEADERSHIP:

SD D A SA

15There is adequate planning of corporate objectives

16There is adequate follow-through of corporate objectives

17There is adequate planning of departmental objectives

18There is adequate follow-through of departmental objectives

(L)ORGANISATION CULTURE & COMMUNICATION:

SD D A SA

19I have a good understanding of how organization is doing

financially.

20 Organization gives me enough recognition for work that is

163

done well.

21I believe there is a spirit of cooperation within organization.

22 I like the people I work with in organization.

HOW CAN I DEVELOP PROFESSIONALLY?

(M) TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT: SD D A SA

23Organization provides as much initial & ongoing training as I

need.

24I trust what the company tells me it takes to advance my

career.

25Organization provides training or experiences to help me

explore other possible opportunities within the company.

(N) CAREER GROWTH AND ADVANCEMENT: SD D A SA

26This organization takes a genuine interest in the well being of

employees.

27There are opportunities for me to advance me career in this

organization.

28You receive effective support to develop your skills and

talents.

29It is clear to me how to advance my careers in this

organization.

“Thank You for Your Cooperation”

164