JANKIDEVI BAJAJ INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT STUDIES

S.N.D.T WOMENS UNIVERSITY, MUMBAI

A RESEARCH STUDY ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT & RETENTION LEVEL

SUBMITTED BY MANALI AGRAWAL (02

I! "#$ %&'"(&) *+)*()),$!" -* &.&'/ -* M&0"$' -* P$'0-!!$) M&!&1$,$!" & I!/+0"'(&) R$)&"(-!0 (MPMIR

200232004

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

PROF. PERI SHASTRI J&!5( D$6( B&7&7 I!0"("+"$ -* M&!&1$,$!" S"+/($0 S.N.D.T W-,$!0 U!(6$'0("8, M+,9&(3 :000:4

CERTIFICATE This is to certify that Ms. Manali Agrawal has completed the project Employee Engagement & Retention Level !nder the g!idance of "rof. "eri #hastri and has $een s!$mitted to the !niversity in partial f!lfillment of the re%!irement for the Master of "ersonnel Management & &nd!strial Relations 'M"M&R(.

"rof. "eri #hastri '"roject *!ide(

)r. *!lnar #harma ')irector+&n+,harge(

)ate- ./th March0 .112

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

3n s!ccessf!l completion of this Research "roject0 &0 Manali Agrawal0 st!dent of Master of "ersonnel Management & &nd!strial Relations0 wo!ld li4e to than4 my instit!te0 5an4i )evi 6ajaj &nstit!te of Management #t!dies0 to give s!ch an opport!nity to ta4e !p this project. #econdly0 & wo!ld li4e than4 my "roject *!ide0 "rof. "eri #hastri with whose g!idelines and directions & was a$le to meet my project o$jective and also the other professors of my instit!te who were availa$le when & needed them. Last $!t not the least0 & wo!ld li4e to than4 all my friends0 relatives and others with whose help and s!pport & was a$le to collect my sample si7e.

CONTENTS

S'. N-. =. 1.1 1.. 1.8 1./ 1.9 2. ..1 ... ..8 ?. 8.1 :. /.1 /.. > 9.1 9.. A 2. @.

T-%(;

P&1$

N-. E<$;+"(6$ S+,,&'8 = C#&%"$'3I 23: 3$jective of the Research . Research Methodology 8 #election of #t!dy Area and #ample #i7e / #ignificance of the #t!dy / Limitation of the #t!dy / C#&%"$'3II >3=: )efinition of Employee Engagement :+11 ;istorical 6ac4gro!nd of Employee Engagement 11+1. Employee Engagement in &ndia 18+1/ C#&%"$'3III =>32: The Literat!re Review 19+./ C#&%"$'3IV 2>3>2 )ata Analysis and &nterpretation of Employees .9+8< )ata Analysis and &nterpretation of ;R Managers 82+9< C#&%"$'3VI >@3>4 =indings 92 Recommendations 9> C-!;)+0(-! A0 R$*$'$!;$0 A= A!!$<+'$ A23A4 EBECUTIVE SUMMARY

Employee engagement is associated with many desira$le o!tcomes0 s!ch as jo$ satisfaction0 intention to stay and jo$ performance. ,ompanies with a greater n!m$er of engaged employees typically have lower operating costs0 higher c!stomer satisfaction and higher profits. There is a tangi$le monetary $enefit to companies investing time and reso!rces in fostering higher engagement within their employees. The tas4 of precisely defining employee engagement is still ongoing0 $!t it is most often defined in terms of $ehavio!rs e?hi$ited in /

the wor4place. Engaged employees are prepared to go the e?tra mile in p!rs!it of wor4place e?cellence. They are am$assadors for their organisations0 who will spea4 highly of the company and its people0 even when they are not in a wor4 setting. An engaged employee is identifia$le $y wor4place $ehavio!rs s!ch as losing trac4 of time as they are so a$sor$ed in the tas4 at hand. This is distinct from e?cessive overtime in order to give the impression of @hard wor4.A 6oth loo4 the same0 $!t one is prod!ctive for the employer+ employee relationship and one is notB Academics wo!ld say that not eno!gh is !nderstood a$o!t what drives employee engagement as most research in the area has tended to foc!s on $!siness o!tcomes witho!t investigating !nderlying ca!ses. As the impact of engagement on $!siness has $een positive and has $een lin4ed with higher profita$ility0 practice has raced ahead of the !nderpinning research in p!rs!it of creating a more engaged and hence profita$le wor4force. & !ndertoo4 research to aid !nderstanding of the area $y investigating the relationship $etween employee engagement and the retention level. At the same time & loo4ed at the interplay $etween individ!al differences and engagement levels of the organi7ation. & hoped to discover $est practices of the organi7ations and the individ!alAs e?pectations from s!ch strategies.

CHAPTER3I =.= OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH1. To find o!t the employee engagement strategies in organi7ations. .. To $enchmar4 the employee engagement practices adopted in vario!s organi7ations.

8. To st!dy the correlation $etween the employee engagement practices carried o!t in the company and retention levels.

=.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGYC

TYPE OF RESEARCHC EBPLORATORY

PRIMARY DATAC )ata collection Method thro!gh C!estionnaire Method was !sed and employee responses on that were ta$!lated and represented in percentage form0 which then were analy7ed and interpreted. This was followed $y findings and recommendations. The %!estionnaire consisted of $oth open ended as well as m!ltiple choice %!estions $ased on : factors as listed $elow1. Attachment to the jo$ .. Agreea$leness 8. Emotional sta$ility /. 3penness to e?perience 9. Achievement orientation :. #elf+efficacy

The a$ove factors are independent factors and retention of employees is dependent on it.

SECONDARY DATAC

&t was thro!gh a list of we$sites0 $oo4s0 jo!rnals0 and newspaper and news maga7ines articles as given at the end of this project in references0 we$liography and $i$liography.

HYPOTHESISC

The retention of employees is dependent on the independent factors.

<

SELECTION OF STUDY AREA AND SAMPLE SIDE

/1 samples of employees and > samples of ;R managers were collected from 11 companies namely1. E)#0 6angalore .. &nfosys0 6angalore 8. T,#0 M!m$ai /. )elloite0 M!m$ai 9. E!re4a =or$es0 M!m$ai :. &)6&0 M!m$ai <. ,#,0 &ndore 2. ;#6, *lo$al Technologies0 "!ne >. Amdocs0 "!ne 11. &mpet!s0 &ndore 11. 6l!e #4y0 M!m$ai 1.. #ahara0 M!m$ai

These companies were chosen as s!$ject of st!dy.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

"eople often lie in e?it interviews a$o!t why they are leaving. Managers sho!ld0 of co!rse0 4now in advance who is leaving and why. A comprehensive list li4e this is of little val!e !nless !sed as a g!ide to gather information as to how to engage the employees so that to retain the talents in the organi7ation.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Age Limitation+ & had access to the yo!ng employees thatAs why the st!dy is mainly on the yo!ngsters. =amily iss!es+ The reason $eing & did not want to go into personal details and stic4 only to jo$ and organisational related iss!es.

CHAPTER3II INTRODUCTION
#!ccess today re%!ires a good $it more than good attendance. Det0 m!ltiple st!dies in different co!ntries and across ind!stries show that employees who are passionate a$o!t their jo$s and the organi7ations in which they wor4 are in the minority. #ome of the #!rvey cond!cted $y few organi7ation revealed that appro?imately 1>E of the employees are highly >

engaged The ,orporate E?ec!tive 6oard0 loo4ing at levels of engagement across 910111 employees aro!nd the world0 placed only 11 percent in what they d!$$ed tr!e $eliever category.1 Towers "errinAs recent Talent Report is slightly more optimistic0 finding j!st 1< percent of the 890111 employees s!rveyed to $e highly engaged. /1 to <1 percent of employees can $e classified as ne!tral0 middle of the road0 or agnostic. Forse yet0 an alarming 11 to .1 percent of employees are actively disengaged Gj!st p!tting in their time or0 worse yet0 !ndermining or $admo!thing their organi7ations and $osses. The economic impact of low engagement can $e staggering. The glo$al s!rvey shows that 8/ per cent of the employees in &ndia are f!lly engaged and 18 per cent disengaged. As many as .> per cent are @almost engagedA. Fhat ma4es these n!m$ers especially disco!raging is that0 s!pposedly0 we have evolved from the dar4 ages of personnel management. 3n one hand0 for the past two decades we have $een trying to reali7e the $enefits of empowerment0 teamwor40 recognition0 people development0 performance management0 and new leadership styles. Evidently0 there is a $ig difference $etween p!tting in place initiatives that have the overall goal of increasing employee engagement and tr!ly seeing the payoffs. And0 on the other hand0 one might easily attri$!te low engagement to persistent downsi7ing0 which leads to an erosion of loyalty and commitment.

2.= D$*(!("(-! -* E,%)-8$$ E!1&1$,$!"

Employee engagement can $e defined as an employee p!tting forth e?tra discretionary effort0 as well as the li4elihood of the employee $eing loyal and remaining with the organi7ation over the long ha!l. Research shows that engaged employees- perform $etter0 p!t in e?tra efforts to help get the jo$ done0 show a strong level of commitment to the organi7ation0 and are more motivated and optimistic a$o!t their wor4 goals. Employers with engaged

11

employees tend to e?perience low employee t!rnover and more impressive $!siness o!tcomes. Employee engagement is more than j!st the c!rrent ;R H$!77wordHI it is essential. &n order for organi7ations to meet and s!rpass organi7ational o$jectives0 employees m!st $e engaged. Research has proven that wholly engaged employees e?hi$it0

;igher self+motivation. ,onfidence to e?press new ideas. ;igher prod!ctivity. ;igher levels of c!stomer approval and service %!ality. Relia$ility. 3rgani7ational loyaltyI less employee t!rnover. Lower a$senteeism.

N$$/ -* E,%)-8$$ E!1&1$,$!"

The general principles of employee engagement have $een aro!nd for decades. )!ring the past five years0 tho!gh0 there has $een a s!rge in the pop!larity of employee engagement. There are fo!r primary drivers. 1. P$-%)$ #&6$ 9$;-,$ "#$ %'(,&'8 0-+';$ -* ;-,%$"("(6$ &/6&!"&1$. The 6roo4ings &nstit!te '.118( e?amined the primary so!rce of mar4et val!e in todayAs organi7ations and how it has changed over time. &n 1>2.0 :. percent of an organi7ationAs mar4et val!e came from tangi$le assets and 82 percent from intangi$le assets. Tangi$le assets incl!de things li4e machinery0 prod!cts0 facilities0 etc. &ntangi$le assets0 on the other hand0 incl!de factors s!ch as $rand0 intellect!al property0 and0 most important0 the %!ality of the wor4force. 6y .11.0 .1 years later0 the so!rce of val!e had almost totally flipped. Almost 21 percent of mar4et val!e today comes from the intangi$le with a scant .1 percent coming from tangi$le assets. As we all have heard $efore0 prod!cts can easily $e copied0 a technological edge can prove fleeting0 and more facilities can $e $!ilt0 $!t the %!ality of an organi7ationAs talent0 its passion and commitment0 is nearly impossi$le to replicate. Engagement is the f!el that drives the val!e of intangi$le assets.

11

.. R$"$!"(-! &!/ "#$ .&' *-' "&)$!". The landmar4 1>>2 McJinsey st!dy0 The War for Talent, was among the first to tal4 a$o!t the potential for wor4force shortages d!e to the aging pop!lation. The st!dyAs a!thors called !pon organi7ations to ta4e more serio!sly their efforts to attract and retain talent0 to ass!re that they wo!ld $e a$le to s!rvive and thrive in the f!t!re. &n the late 1>>1s and early .111s0 the sl!mp in the glo$al economy %!ic4ly too4 the spotlight off of the anticipated talent shortage. And some predict that a portion of todayAs aging wor4ers will delay their retirements o!t of necessity0 atten!ating the e?pected talent shortage. #ince .118 the pict!re is once again changing0 al$eit not as %!ic4ly as e?pected. =or e?ample0 the #ociety for ;!man Reso!rces Management reported that /2 percent of the employees it polled are actively see4ing new jo$s. Additionally0 the wor4force is getting older0 with many of the $a$y $oomers hitting :1 in .11: and ready to retire. 3ver and a$ove the wor4force cost of increased retirements0 companies are $eginning to ta4e heed of the enormo!s financial costs of t!rnover and increasingly viewing employee engagement as an imperative for 4eeping their 4ey employeesG and attracting new onesGas the war for talent heats !p once again. 8. P-%+)&' &%%$&). Remem$er the reengineering waveK Even those who !sed it as more than j!st a g!ise for massive layoffs fo!nd it painf!l. #i? #igma implementations are inval!a$le to $!siness performance0 $!t most companies are finding them too comple? to implement well. Engagement is a different matter altogether. Fhile it still ta4es patience to implement0 engagement gets to the hard st!ff $y foc!sing on the softer st!ff. As one manager said&tAs a$o!t appealing to the head and the heart. Engagement is a$o!t creating passion0 itAs a$o!t foc!sing on what people do well0 and itAs a$o!t development and recognition. #ome have called employee engagement a form of positive psychology which0 on the whole0 is an easy pill for organi7ations and their employees to swallow. /. O6$'.#$),(!1 (,%&;". The h!man reso!rces f!nction has $een !nder press!re for decades to prove that it ma4es a difference. Fhile ,E3s may espo!se the importance of their wor4forces in their ann!al reports0 when times get to!gh0 ;R is among the first to get the $!dget a?e. FhyK A lac4 of convincing evidence on the val!e of ;R initiatives. ;R professionals are scram$ling0 according to a recent ,onference 6oard report0 to prove that their activities and investments are $oth efficient and positively infl!ential to $!siness strategy.The positive relationship $etween engagement and performance 'doc!mented in h!ndreds of st!dies0 with the evidence mo!nting every day( provides a way for ;R to prove 1.

its contri$!tion. &tAs a fact- The higher the level of engagement0 the higher the performance of the $!siness. The research is not inconcl!sive0 not limited to one co!ntry or ind!stry0 and not contained to a few h!ndred peopleGitAs overwhelming.

H-. "- M&5$ E,%)-8$$0 E!1&1$

G'-."# &!/ /$6$)-%,$!" + An e?citing position0 with plenty of opport!nity for growth0 learning0 and advancement for employees is always helpf!l in retaining employees. S+%%-'" &!/ '$;-1!("(-! + *iving those rewards and recognition. &n many instances0 employee retention starts j!st as soon as an employee is hired. &f a company sees an !n!s!al amo!nt of potential in a new hire0 management co!ld ma4e them feel appreciated right off the $at. &n a way0 this practice can $e considered a com$ination of recr!itment and retention tools. Employee "articipation in decision ma4ing is also a very effective engagement activity in the organi7ation. A)(1!(!1 $**-'" .("# 0"'&"$18GEngagement $egins with employeesA clear !nderstanding of what they sho!ld $e doing on the jo$. Each employee needs a solid jo$ description and a clear set of performance e?pectations. E,%-.$',$!"GEmpowerment is a feeling of jo$ ownership and commitment $ro!ght a$o!t thro!gh the a$ility to ma4e decisions0 $e responsi$le0 $e meas!red $y res!lts0 and $e recogni7ed as a tho!ghtf!l0 contri$!ting h!man $eing rather than a pair of hands doing what others say. T$&,.-'5 &!/ C-))&9-'&"(-! 3 &n the conte?t of engagement0 teamwor4 and colla$oration re%!ire good relationships $oth within the wor4 gro!p and across wor4 gro!ps. Many organi7ations have strong teams with mem$ers who wor4 well with each other.

T#$ B$!$*("0 -* E,%)-8$$ E!1&1$,$!"

The power of employee engagement is that it is closely connected to $!siness res!lts. Fhen employees wor4 in an environment in which they can foc!s their attention on their wor4 and have a drive to do their $est0 organi7ations e?perience higher levels of productivity and

18

profitability. Engaged employees loo4 for $etter ways to do their wor40 spend less time on wasted activities0 and ma4e effective !se of reso!rces. &n the end0 companies deliver $etter prod!cts or services and have more reso!rces left to invest in f!rther improvements. Altho!gh it is an important consideration0 high financial compensation is not the only driver of increased employee retention. As addressed previo!sly0 employees decide to stay with organi7ations for other reasons0 s!ch as growth and development opport!nities0 strong leadership0 and meaningf!l wor4. T!rnover costs organi7ations millions of dollars each year0 and engagement has a proven relationship to employee retention. Lo one li4es going into a store where the sales cler4s are s!llen0 a$sent0 or !ncooperative. &tAs easy to see why c!stomers notice engaged employees and are more satisfied and willing to p!rchase again. =or e?ample0Tom La$adie0 director of training and development at ,ompM#A states0Fhen yo! wal4 into a store with high engagement scores0 yo! can sense the positive tone. Employees whistle and smile0 they approach c!stomers0 and the store gives off that el!sive approacha$le feeling that c!stomers appreciate. 3rgani7ations with engaged employees have more satisfied customers, $!t itAs not j!st $eca!se employees have $etter interactions with c!stomers. Engaged employees are more li4ely to improve other critical factors affecting c!stomer satisfaction0 s!ch as responsiveness0 prod!ct %!ality0 tho!ght leadership0 innovation0 etc. =inally0 higher engagement translates into higher and faster revenue growth. Engaged employees are more innovative and place more emphasis on meeting c!stomer needs. The what can & do $etter or differently attit!de of engaged employees vers!s the itAs not in my jo$ description attit!de of the !nengaged simply leads to $etter financial performance.

ASSESSING ENGAGEMENT 3ver the past eight years0 The *all!p 3rganisation has $een cond!cting e?ha!stive st!dies of employee engagement to try and answer these f!ndamental %!estions. 3ne of a handf!l of engagement evangelists0 *all!p has promoted the val!e of meas!ring employee engagement thro!gh a series of $oo4s0 seminars and programmesI it has also ta4en the lead in identifying and managing the factors that impact engagement levels. 1/

&n order to rate the engagement of a wor4force0 first *all!p assesses employees to determine whether they are engaged0 not engaged or actively disengaged. Engaged employees are the stars in a company. "assionate a$o!t what they do0 they feel a strong connection to their company and perform at high levels every day while loo4ing for ways to improve themselves and the company as a whole. Lot engaged employees0 according to *all!p0 are the company 7om$ies who show !p every day and p!t in j!st eno!gh effort to meet the $asic re%!irements of their jo$s. Fitho!t passion or innovation0 these employees neither commit to the companyAs direction0 nor do they wor4 against it. Actively disengaged employees are those who present a $ig pro$lem for $!sinesses. Legative $y nat!re0 these people are !nhappy in their wor4 and they compo!nd their lac4 of prod!ctivity $y sharing this !nhappiness with those aro!nd them. They are the prover$ial $ad apples who revel in their discontent while !ndermining the accomplishments of othersI as a res!lt0 not only do they achieve little themselves0 they also prevent others from $eing prod!ctive too.

2.2 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

3ver the past decade0 the way in which people are managed and developed at wor4 has come to $e recogni7ed as one of the primary factors in achieving improvement in organi7ational performance. This is reflected $y pop!lar idioms s!ch as people are o!r most important assets . 6ac4 in the good old days of corporate world0 things were pretty simple. ,ompanies p!t people on career trac4s straight o!t of collegeI they gave employees a jo$ for life and waved

19

them good$ye with a gold watch at retirement. The promise of the sta$le life as a company employee 4ept $oth morale and prod!ctivity high. Then things changed. ,ompetition increased0 margins shran4 and shareholders got more demanding. #!ddenly0 company staff were finding the very jo$ sec!rity theyAd co!nted on was disappearing0 and at speed. This !pheaval meant companies had to find new ways to motivate their employees in order to ma4e them more prod!ctive since0 witho!t sta$ility0 employees were loo4ing for something else from their employers. And th!s0 Engagement was $orn. &n itself0 engagement isnAt really a new ideaI owners and managers have $een tal4ing a$o!t engagement0 in one form or another0 for cent!riesN they j!st !sed different words to e?press it. &n former times0 engagement foc!sed more on prod!ctivity and achieving res!lts thro!gh threat of p!nishment or $y means of reward. 6!t common sense + and good comm!nication + event!ally won o!t and0 today0 organi7ations everywhere are spending serio!s money on all forms of employee engagement. 6oiled down0 it simply means @developing a happy and loyal wor4forceA. Enlightened managers now reali7e that any company as a whole will $enefit when its employees 4now whatAs going on and they feel part of the team. The tric4y part is in defining what ma4es a wor4force happy0 and in !nderstanding how this good will translates into company s!ccess. =rom the e?tant literat!re review0 it is ac4nowledged that s!ccessf!l organi7ations share a f!ndamental philosophy of val!ing and investing in their employees. &n fact many research st!dies have descri$ed h!man reso!rce management as a means of achieving competitive advantage. ,onsistent with this it is an e%!ally important iss!e for the organi7ation to retain their critical 'core( employees. Most organi7ation today contin!es to str!ggle with retention $eca!se they are relying on salary increases and $on!ses to prevent t!rnover. Essentially more organi7ations are now reali7ing that retention is a strategic iss!e and contin!es to $e a competitive advantage. The term engagement stems from the wor4 of Jahn '1>>1( who disting!ished $etween $eing engaged and disengaged at wor4. "!tting the h!manistic factors together0 6eer0 #pecter0 Lawrence0 C!inn+Mills and Falton '1>2/( created the @;arvard 6!siness #choolA model of ;RM which foc!sed on people in an organi7ation to $e the 4ey reso!rce. &n light of s!ch critical emphasis $eing placed on h!man capital0 "a!la Jetter has aptly noted0 1:

Engagement is all a$o!t creating a c!lt!re where people do not feel mis!sed0 over!sed0 !nder!sed or a$!sed. At a very $asic level0 employee engagement draws from the tenets of the @;ierarchy of LeedsA as concept!ali7ed $y Maslow0 the highest stage of which is self+act!ali7ationI the pinnacle of an individ!alAs f!lfillment of talent and potential. This theory of @higher order needsA was largely overloo4ed in the heydays of scientific @assem$ly lineA man!fact!ring.

2.? EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN INDIA

The recent For4Asia research st!dy $y Fatson Fyatt Forldwide indicates that &ndia has the highest percentage of highly engaged wor4ers at <2E in Asia as compared to 5apan0 which has the lowest employee engagement level at 8>E. ;ead to head with ,hina0 the engagement level of the &ndian wor4er is .1E more than his ,hinese co!nterpart. These are all enco!raging signs + $!t the challenges and the opport!nities ahead are manifold. The imminent M# slowdown0 shrin4ing of talent pool0

1<

slowdown in hiring0 larger employee e?pectations are all challenges for internal comm!nicators to cope with. The *all!p 3rgani7ation descri$es employee engagement as the Othe involvement with and enth!siasm for wor4O. The challenges faced $y organi7ations in &ndia are aro!nd attrition0 comm!nication0 career development and engagement while trying to 4eep pace with the e?plosive growth. 3!tso!rcing o!tfits have the highest attrition rates losing staff at a rate of $etween 111E and .11E a year. &t is widely $elieved that organi7ations spend an average of 8:E of their reven!es on their employees $!t do not have a tangi$le way to meas!re its impact. A Mercer st!dy P @FhatAs For4ingA P a series of national research on wor4er insights0 highlights factors that ma4e a difference to employee engagement. The s!rveyAs 1.9 %!estions elicit views in the areas defined $y MercerAs ;!man ,apital #trategy Model and cover training and development0 wor4 environment0 leadership0 performance management0 wor4Qlife $alance0 comm!nication0 compensation0 $enefits0 and engagement. The &ndia st!dy throws !p some fascinating directions for ;R and internal comm!nication professionals. Employee engagement is no more j!st a$o!t the employeeAs intent to leave. The employeeAs commitment to the organi7ation and motivation to contri$!te to the organi7ationAs s!ccess plays a significant role. The top three drivers in &ndia are tr!st in senior management0 how the organi7ation is perceived for c!stomer service and fair pay. #!rprisingly0 from an &ndian conte?t0 the least val!ed factors in the contin!!m were $enefits0 compensation and performance management. &n &ndia0 having a long+term career is considered positive and sta$le. =re%!ent jo$ changes are viewed negatively and therefore the high scores aro!nd the commitment co!nt are in line with the mindset. &nternal comm!nication and ;R professionals need to ta4e note of the employeeAs need for giving feed$ac4 and to o$serve action ta4en from this. Employees seem to $e getting very little information on the organi7ationAs vision and f!t!re plans0 a ca!se of concern. 3ther areas for action incl!de the organi7ationAs rep!tation in the mar4et P congr!ent to other research in this space which $elieves that organi7ationAs which are socially responsi$le are considered $etter places to wor4. &n the talent management $rac4et0 managers fare poorly for their involvement0 !nderstanding and s!pport as well as for merit $ased appraisals.

12

&n &ndia0 with a large n!m$er of glo$al players entering the mar4et0 the talent pool has now a plethora of choices and even these m!ltinationals are finding it to!gh to retain staff. The ,anadian ;R Reporter writes that employees want to 4now where their careers are heading and that is a critical component of the talent retention strategy organi7ations need to foc!s on. #ofter styles of leadership have a $etter impact in &ndia and ,hina leaving organi7ations to develop or see4 leaders who can fill this need.

C#&%"$'3III ?.= THE LITERATURE REVIEW

Employee retention contin!es to remain a top priority at many organi7ations and one that companies increasingly view as a driver of $!siness strategy. 6!siness+critical 4nowledge can wal4 o!t the door when an employee leaves the company. Fhile employee retention fig!res have long $een !sed $y companies as a meas!re of their performance in developing an effective organi7ation0 this view of employee retention is not only o!tdated0 $!t these fig!res may not $e comprehensive eno!gh to tr!ly determine the organi7ationHs effectiveness. The concept of employee retention is more comple? than simply eval!ating employee 1>

t!rnover from one year to the ne?t. These fig!res of employee retention can $e somewhat misleading G it isnHt necessarily the n!m$er of employees an organi7ation loses0 itHs the n!m$er of top+performing employees that leave the company that sho!ld $e of concern. =or e?ample0 management is one of the 4ey reasons employees decide to stay or leave an organi7ation. &f there is high t!rnover among the management ran4s0 employees may also feel !nsta$le in this ever+changing environment. Det0 on the other hand0 it may not $e the $est $!siness strategy to retain a manager that is disli4ed $y employees. The $!siness strategy of employee retention act!ally lies with employee engagementI retention is an o!tcome of engagement. Fhat most organi7ations fail to reali7e is that employee engagement is the $iggest retention factor they have control over. Engaged employees not only stay longer with the organi7ation0 they are more prod!ctive0 more conscientio!s0 ma4e fewer errors0 and ta4e $etter care of c!stomers. The $!siness strategy of employee retention m!st incorporate methods that achieve a high level of employee engagement among the organi7ationHs top performers0 not necessarily the entire wor4force. T#$ I,%-'"&!;$ -* R$"&(!(!1 T-% P$'*-',$'0 Many organi7ations ponder the %!estions0 OFhat sho!ld the goal $e for retentionKO and OFhat is an appropriate level for employee t!rnoverKO Det0 in as4ing these %!estions0 many organi7ations donHt reali7e that there are no set answers. &f0 for e?ample0 an organi7ation loses five percent of its top performers every year0 the res!lts from this t!rnover co!ld $e potentially devastating to the company. 3n the other hand0 if the company is losing .1 percent of its least prod!ctive employees0 this co!ld act!ally $e very $eneficial for the organi7ation and an opport!nity to increase the strength of its wor4force each year. &n other words0 itHs not j!st a$o!t retention anymore G itHs a$o!t retaining the very $est people at each level within the organi7ation. The 4ey to effective retention of top performers is to determine the factors that c!rrently do0 and will0 4eep them engaged. The #tarting "oint an organi7ation m!st first determine who the top performers and high potentials are within their wor4force. 3f the many ways this can $e accomplished0 some incl!de involving management at every level to create a list of those employees who are performing at levels that e?ceed e?pectations and those who e?hi$it the potential to $ecome top performers0 or !tili7ing the res!lts from employee performance reviews to separate those who scored the highest from those who scored the lowest. This method of gaining a clear !nderstanding of who the top performers are within an organi7ation is called employee segmentation. 3nce an organi7ation has segmented its .1

wor4force0 it can then start to meas!re retention among its highest potential and highest rated0 or most prod!ctive0 employees. 6y viewing each segment separately0 organi7ations are creating a more appropriate $enchmar4 to meas!re employee retention0 i.e.0 is the organi7ation retaining or losing a high percentage of its $est peopleK U!/$'0"&!/(!1 E,%)-8$$ E!1&1$,$!" Employee engagement can $e defined as an employee p!tting forth e?tra discretionary effort0 as well as the li4elihood of the employee $eing loyal and remaining with the organi7ation over the long ha!l. Research shows that engaged employees- perform $etter0 p!t in e?tra efforts to help get the jo$ done0 show a strong level of commitment to the organi7ation0 and are more motivated and optimistic a$o!t their wor4 goals. Employers with engaged employees tend to e?perience low employee t!rnover and more impressive $!siness o!tcomes. Employee engagement is more than j!st the c!rrent ;R H$!77wordHI it is essential. &n order for organi7ations to meet and s!rpass organi7ational o$jectives0 employees m!st $e engaged. Research has proven that wholly engaged employees e?hi$it0

;igher self+motivation. ,onfidence to e?press new ideas. ;igher prod!ctivity. ;igher levels of c!stomer approval and service %!ality. Relia$ility. 3rgani7ational loyaltyI less employee t!rnover. Lower a$senteeism.

,!rrent st!dies show that organi7ations are foc!sing on the meaning of employee engagement and how to ma4e employees more engaged. Employees feel engaged when they find personal meaning and motivation in their wor40 receive positive interpersonal s!pport0 and operate in an efficient wor4 environment. Fhat $ro!ght engagement to the forefront and why is everyone interested in itK Most li4ely0 the tight economy has refoc!sed attention on ma?imi7ing employee o!tp!t and ma4ing the most of organi7ational reso!rces. Fhen organi7ations foc!s attention on their people0 they are ma4ing an investment in their most important reso!rce. Do! can c!t all the costs yo! want0 $!t if yo! neglect yo!r people0 c!tting costs wonAt ma4e m!ch of a difference. Engagement is all a$o!t getting employees to give it .1

their all. #ome of the most s!ccessf!l organi7ations are 4nown for their !ni%!e wor4 environments in which employees are motivated to do their very $est. These great places to wor4 have $een recogni7ed in s!ch lists as =ort!neAs 111 6est ,ompanies to For4 =or. The concept of engagement is a nat!ral evol!tion of past research on high+involvement0 empowerment0 jo$ motivation0 organi7ational commitment0 and tr!st. All of these research streams foc!s on the perceptions and attit!des of employees a$o!t the wor4 environment. &n some ways0 there are variations on the same f!ndamental iss!e. Fhat predicts employees giving their allK 3$vio!sly0 all organi7ations want their employees to $e engaged in their wor4. H($'&';#8 -* E!1&1$,$!"

E,%)-8$$ E!1&1$,$!" &" E&;# L$6$) &n addition0 employee segmentation is an important method to !tili7e when eval!ating employee engagement at each level. =or instance0 the factors that engage the most prod!ctive employees in an organi7ation may not $e the same as the factors that engage the least prod!ctive employees. Those employees who receive the highest ran4ings on their performance reviews may tend to e?press higher levels of jo$ satisfaction when they are presented with challenging opport!nities that allow them to grow and learn. Those that receive the lowest ran4ings might $e more foc!sed on iss!es s!rro!nding wor4Qlife $alance and jo$ sec!rity. Fhile some factors0 s!ch as good comm!nication0 are important among all employees0 the attempt to foc!s on the f!ll spectr!m of factors that engage the entire

..

wor4force may ca!se an organi7ation to omit some of the factors that are the most important to the companyHs most prod!ctive people. E,%)-8$$ S&"(0*&;"(-! D-$0 N-" EE+&) E!1&1$,$!" Fhile organi7ations may $e aware Othro!gh the grapevineO that employees are !nsatisfied0 itHs the reasons for the dissatisfaction that el!de them. Fhile employee satisfaction is important0 itHs not the end game G it is only one piece of employee engagement. #atisfaction is imperative in that0 for those individ!als who are top performers0 satisfaction may $e derived from their achievement orientation0 their am$ition0 or their sense of responsi$ility. 3n the other hand0 the attempt to satisfy an !nder+performer who will only $e content with a lightened wor4load may not $e a worthy ca!se. Again0 the foc!s is on ens!ring that those individ!als who have $een identified as top performers and high potentials are engaged in the organi7ation. As stated0 employee engagement incorporates employee satisfaction0 $!t also incl!des the essential elements of pride0 commitment and loyalty in the organi7ation. Engaged employees arenHt concerned with meeting the minim!m re%!irements to complete a tas40 they are foc!sed on what they can do to $etter the company. Essentially0 they ta4e ownership in the company despite whether or not they act!ally own a share of stoc4. D'(6$'0 -* $!1&1$,$!" A two+way relationship $etween the employer and employee The importance of the individ!al $eing a$le to align themselves to the prod!cts0 services and val!es of the organisation The a$ility of the organisation to comm!nicate its vision0 strategy0 o$jectives and val!es to its staff so that they are clearly !nderstood Management give staff s!fficient @el$ow roomA and a!tonomy to let them f!lfil their potential The employer is highly effective at engaging in two+way comm!nication with its staff0 in partic!lar enco!raging !pward comm!nication Lastly0 that management from the top to the $ottom of the organisation are @committed leadersA and that the 4ey role of the immediate line managerQs!pervisor is recognised as one of the most important cond!its to achieving effective employee engagement.

.8

E)$,$!"0 -* E!1&1$,$!" #ome researches concl!de that personal impact0 foc!sed wor40 and interpersonal harmony comprise engagement. Each of these three components has s!$+components that f!rther define the meaning of engagement. "ersonal &mpact+Employees feel more engaged when they are a$le to ma4e a !ni%!e contri$!tion0 e?perience empowerment0 and have opport!nities for personal growth. "ast research conc!rs that iss!es s!ch as the a$ility to impact the wor4 environment and ma4ing meaningf!l choices in the wor4place are critical components of employee empowerment. #ome research on retaining talent fo!nd that the perception of meaningf!l wor4 is one of the most infl!ential factors determining employeesA willingness to stay with the organi7ation. =oc!sed For4+Employees feel more engaged when they have clear direction0 performance acco!nta$ility0 and an efficient wor4 environment. Aside from the personal drive and motivation to ma4e a contri$!tion0 employees need to !nderstand where to foc!s their efforts. Fitho!t a clear strategy and direction from senior leadership0 employees will waste their time on the activities that do not ma4e a difference for the organi7ationAs s!ccess. Additionally0 even when direction is in place0 employees m!st receive feed$ac4 to ens!re that they are on trac4 and $eing held acco!nta$le for their progress. &n partic!lar0 employees need to feel that low performance is not accepta$le and that there are conse%!ences for poor performance. =inally0 employees want to wor4 in an environment that is efficient in terms of its time0 ./

reso!rces0 and $!dget. Employees lose faith in the organi7ation when they see e?cessive waste. =or e?ample0 employees $ecome fr!strated when they are as4ed to operate witho!t the necessary reso!rces or waste time in !nnecessary meetings. &nterpersonal ;armony+Employees feel more engaged when they wor4 in a safe and cooperative environment. 6y safety0 we mean that employee tr!st one another and %!ic4ly resolve conflicts when they arise. Employees want to $e a$le to rely on each other and foc!s their attention on the tas4s that really matter. ,onflict wastes time and energy and needs to $e dealt with %!ic4ly. #ome researches also find that tr!st and interpersonal harmony is a f!ndamental !nderlying principle in the $est organi7ations. Employees also need to cooperate to get the jo$ done. "artnerships across departments and within the wor4 gro!p ens!re that employees stay informed and get the s!pport they need to do their jo$s. M&5(!1 U0$ -* E!1&1$,$!" Meas!rement of employee engagement can have many applications in the organi7ation. Earlier0 it is mentioned that engagement co!ld serve as a general inde? of ;R effectiveness in an ;R scorecard. Also0 engagement meas!res serve as an easy way to $enchmar4 the wor4 climate against other organi7ations. 3ther !ses incl!deLeeds Analysis+The f!ndamental iss!es meas!red in engagement provide a %!ic4 inde? of what leaders and ;R need to do to ma4e things $etter. &n addition0 items in engagement s!rveys tend to $e very actiona$le. This means that leaders or others in the organi7ation can ta4e action that will affect the score on a single item. Eval!ation+Many learning and performance interventions are designed to impact some aspect of engagement. Fhen an engagement meas!re is !sed as a pre+implementation $aseline0 the impact of the intervention can $e ga!ged $y meas!ring post+implementation changes in engagement. ,limate #!rvey+#ome organi7ations li4e to !se engagement meas!res as simple inde?es of the wor4place c!lt!re. Fhile more e?tensive s!rveys are val!a$le0 sometimes itAs easier to foc!s attention on a few simple and proven factors. Leader or )epartment =eed$ac4+)epending on the demographic information collected when the engagement meas!re is implemented0 one can create $rea4o!t reports $y department or leader. This means departments and leaders can gain a $etter !nderstanding of how engagement in their gro!ps differs from the rest of the organi7ation. This information can $e !sed to create development plans or plans for larger+scale interventions. .9

M$&0+'(!1 "#$ I,%&;" -* E,%)-8$$ E!1&1$,$!"

BENCHMARKING BEST PRACTICES

HSBC G)-9&) R$0-+';(!1 The companies try to ma4e a match of it $y positioning their organisations as a @f!n wor4placeA to engage employees. #pea4ing to the yo!th in the lang!age they !nderstand0 companies organise @dress downA days $ased on festival themes0 distri$!te soft sports e%!ipment which can $e !sed inside the processing floor and organise reg!lar trips to movies as well as dining o!t. Ac4nowledging that recognising employees for a jo$ well done is a 4ey retention tool0 HSBC G)-9&) R$0-+';(!1 has reg!lar rewards and recognition programmes where o!tstanding agents get to $as4 in the glory of their achievements. Leadership development is ta4en very serio!sly with first line managers getting to hone their s4ills in vario!s tools re%!ired to lead a team s!ccessf!lly. Empowerment is a 4ey ingredient in engaging employees and ens!ring they stay that way. 3n c!e almost all BPO o!tfits organise .:

reg!lar foc!s gro!p disc!ssions and interaction with the senior management to ens!re everyone is heard. &nternal comm!nication channels li4e intranets and message $oards are li$erally !sed to reach o!t and $randed goodies are reg!larly distri$!ted to foster a sense of $elonging S+! M(;'-080"$,0 At #!n the virt!al nat!re is partly d!e to fle?i$le wor4ing practices. Fhile fle?i$le wor4ing arrangements are a pl!s for many employees and red!ces facility costs for the organi7ation0 that fle?i$ility comes with some downsides li4eI isolation0 loneliness and an increase in personal distractions. &solation0 especially when paired with the demands of wor4 in an increasingly competitive environment0 can wear down the sense of connection0 commitment and e?citement a$o!t any jo$. Th!s a critical challenge for managers of virt!al teams is how to 4eep remote employees engaged. At #!n0 the concept of employee engagement starts right from the topR The ,E3 interacts with #!n employees thro!gh F#ML0 a for!m on #!nAs intranet. ;e !ses this to s!stain an active an ongoing dialog!e on the corporate goals and direction. Thro!gh this interactive on+line reso!rce he also solicits their feed$ac4 and opinions R 3ther senior management mem$ers engages with employees on technology directions thro!gh his personal $log R 6!siness Mnit ;eads and E?ec!tive Sice+presidents have a target of holding si? @town hallsA with employees every year across the glo$e R At the co!ntry level0 #enior Management is tas4ed with constantly engaging employees thro!gh vario!s for!ms0 comm!nication media and events to $!ild e?citement and passion incl!ding some that also reach o!t to the employeesA families. S"&!/&'/ C#&'"$'$/ G'-+% They $elieve in the importance of $!ilding a wor4 environment where every employee feels highly engaged to apply their individ!al talents to deliver s!staina$le $!siness performance. They have $een meas!ring employee engagement worldwide since .111 with a vol!ntary response rate consistently over >9E. &n .11<0 the s!rvey covered all 9< co!ntries with >9E of employees participating vol!ntarily. This is a significant achievement and a clear indication that employees are committed to improving individ!al and team performance. .<

They have a contin!o!s rise in $oth the n!m$er of engaged employees and teams since the s!rvey was introd!ced. Fe provide team+specific data to each manager0 which they !se to disc!ss and develop action plans with their teams to increase engagement C-!;)+0(-! The competition for talent means that we have to $e very good at attracting0 motivating and retaining talent. 3!r talented h!man capital is o!r $iggest asset and lia$ility and we need to meas!re how well itAs adding val!e. Engagement is an increasingly important h!man capital metric $eca!se Engagement levels correlate with $!siness performance Meas!ring Engagement tells !s how well we are doing in the competition for talent )riving Engagement levels higher improves o!r a$ility to attract0 motivate and retain talent and so generates val!e from o!r h!man capital investment. Engagement is not a simple matter. Lothing is more dangero!s than meas!ring engagement witho!t ma4ing the commitment to act on the feed$ac4. Engagement has to $e a leadership+ driven initiative from the most senior level all the way to the front line. Lo one affects an employeeAs engagement as m!ch as his or her immediate leader. Engaged leaders coach proactively for s!ccess0 inspire loyalty and tr!st0 and $!ild an environment in which employees are motivated and engaged. To foster an environment of engagement0 organi7ations need strong systems and strategies that promote and s!pport engagement. ;iring and selection systems that meas!re motivation and the propensity for engagement0 leadership training in certain s4ills 'coaching0 infl!encing others0 managing change(0 performance management and acco!nta$ility systems that provide direction0 s!pport0 and o$jective assessmentsGall wor4 together to provide a fo!ndation and environment in which engagement can flo!rish. Mltimately0 engagement lies in the heart of the employee. Meas!ring motivational and jo$ fit d!ring the hiring process ens!res that yo! select people who can and want to find meaning in their wor4. #ome people have personal characteristics that correlate with higher levels of engagement0 and those characteristics can $e screened for d!ring the hiring process. 3nce yo!Ave hired the right people0 engagement can $e either f!elled or hampered $y the wor4 environment and %!ality of leadership. 6!ilding an engaged wor4force is a long+term0 ongoing initiative. 6eca!se it re%!ires a coordinated0 consistent effort from leaders0 organi7ational systems0 and individ!als0 it m!st $e aligned and lin4ed .2

with the most important organi7ational $!siness drivers0 or it will get p!shed aside $y the daily press of wor40 and lang!ish. &n the end0 the rewards are many. A f!lly engaged wor4force is a loyal wor4forceGe?pect t!rnover to drop. &n addition0 an engaged wor4force will give the e?tra effort yo!r organi7ation needs to remain competitive. Employee engagement is no longer j!st a $!77word or a management fad. &tAs no longer a fancy tool which can $e ta4en off the shelf0 d!sted and pressed into serviceI rather itAs a strategic imperative which canAt $e ta4en for granted. As c!stomers increasingly demand enhanced levels of service and val!e for money0 alienating the hearts and minds of the employees is no longer possi$le witho!t organisational demise. Th!s0 the on!s is now on the organi7ations to ma4e the first overt!re.

CHAPTER3IV :.= DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF EMPLOYEES

C1. )o yo! 4now what is e?pected of yo! at wor4K a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le A!&)80(0C $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

.>

:2E of the sample agreed to the fact that they are aware a$o!t the wor4 which they have to perform while 8.E are strongly agree on this fact.

F2 At wor40 do yo! have the opport!nity to do what yo! do $est every dayK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le A!&)80(0C $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

81

Majority '98E( of the employees get the opport!nity to do $est of their wor4 everyday while .2E of them disagreed on this and 12E of them strongly agreed.

F? &n the last three months0 have yo! received recognition or praise for doing good wor4K a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le A!&)80(0C $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

81

2/E of the employees have received recognition or praise in the last three months for doing good wor4 while 11E of the employees are highly satisfied with recognition in their organi7ation and 9E of them has not received any praise in the last 8 months.

F: &s there someone at wor4 who enco!rages yo!r developmentK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le A!&)80(0C $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

8.

*enerally people feel sense of $elongingness when someone is their at their wor4place to s!pport them and 2/E of the employees agreed on this fact while 2E have strongly agreed and the other 2E disagreed.

F> At wor40 do yo!r opinions seem to co!ntK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

A!&)80(0C 88

Employees participation in decision ma4ing is again a criteria of strongly agreed to this and only 8E have disagreed.

meas!ring employee

engagement. 2<E of the employees have agreed that their decision seems to co!nt0 11E

FA Are yo!r associates 'fellow employees( committed to doing %!ality wor4K a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

A!&)80(0C 8/

<>E of the sample agreed that their fellow employees are committed to do %!ality wor4 while 11E have disagreed on this fact. 9E of them have chosen strongly on this and the other 9E has given no comments on this.

F2 &n the last year0 have yo! had opport!nities at wor4 to learn and growK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le A!&)80(0C $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

89

Learning and )evelopment is one of the most important aspect to find o!t the employee engagement in the organi7ation. ::E have agreed that they get the opport!nity to learn and grow in the organi7ation while .1E of them have strongly agreed on it. 2E of the employee have not given any reply and 9E were disagree.

F@ Are the pay and $enefits in yo!r organi7ation compara$le to similar companiesK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le A!&)80(0C $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

8:

/.E of the sample is satisfied with pay and pac4ages of their organi7ation while 8.E are highly satisfied with it. 1:E disagree on the competitive pay and $enefit pac4ages.

F4 Are jo$ promotions in this organi7ation fair and o$jectiveK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

A!&)80(0C 8<

;alf the percentage '91E( of the employees $elieve that the promotions are done o$jectively0 81E strongly agree to the fairness of the same while 18E do!$t the fairness and o$jectivity of the process.

F=0. Are organi7ation policies clearly comm!nicated in the organi7ationK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le Analysis$( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

82

/<E of the sample has agreed to $e clear on the policies that prevail in their respective organi7ations. A good proportion of /.E strongly agreed on the clarity while only 11E reported am$ig!ity on the policies.

F==. )o yo! see yo!rself contin!ing to wor4 for this organi7ation two years from nowK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le A!&)80(0C 8> $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

A majority of 91E has agreed to contin!e to serve in the same organi7ation for ne?t two years0 ./E are very m!ch willing to do the same whereas a stric4ing .:E of the employees are those who are on the verge to leave the organi7ation since they are not even commiting for ne?t two years.

F=2. )o yo! recommend yo!r friendsQrelatives in yo!r organi7ationK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le A!&)80(0C /1 $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

./E of the sample s!rveyed strongly $elieve in recommending friends and relatives to their organi7ations0 :8E agreed to this while 18E has disregarded the option.

F=?. #elect and ran4 the following engagement tools applica$le in yo!r organi7ation. "lease rate the options0 from 1+ 2 '1 $eing the lowest and 2 $eing the highest(. a( #tress Management $( For4 life $alance c( ,areer development /1

d( Employees "articipation in decision ma4ing e( ,o!nsellingQ =eed$ac4 f( Rewards and Recognition #chemes g( Employee Referral #cheme h( Retirement "lans A!&)80(0C

Rewards and recognition schemes to $e the most pop!lar engagement tool amongst the employees0 ne?t is efforts on ,areer develoment. Employee participation in decision ma4ing and ,o!nselingQ =eed$ac4 seem to $e e%!ally effective0 ne?t in line is Employee referral scheme. #tress management is then regarded as important $!t Retirement plans and For4 life $alance s!rprisingly seem to $e of least effective.

CHAPTER3V

>.= DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF HR MANAGERS

/.

1. )oes yo!r company have a clearly stated and p!$lished employment policyK a( Des $( Lo A!&)80(0C

A whooping majority of 2>E of the managers has agreed to the e?istence of a clearly stated and p!$lished employment policy and only 11E has denied it.

.. )oes yo!r company comm!nicate its corporate goals to all employeesK a( Des

/8

$( Lo A!&)80(0C

Everyone '111E( has agreed on comm!nicating corporate goals to all the employees.

8. )o yo! comm!nicate what is e?pected o!t of the employeeK a( Des $( Lo //

A!&)80(0C

111E positive response has $een received when as4ed a$o!t whether the e?pectations are comm!nicated to the employees.

/. )o yo! allow yo!r s!$ordinates to ta4e their own decisionsK a( Des $( Lo /9

A!&)80(0C

A majority of the sample s!rveyed has responded that they allow their s!$ordinates to ta4e their own decisions and only 11E informed that this is not the case.

9. &s there any involvement of employees in their performance appraisalK a( Totally involved $( "artially involved /:

c( Lot involved A!&)80(0C

/9E of the managers agreed in totally involving the employees in the performance appraisal process0 88E agreed on a partial participation while ..E said there is no involvement at all.

:. After appraisal do yo! comm!nicate to the employees the areas in which they are lac4ingK a( $( Lo /< Des

A!&)80(0C

Employees are given feed$ac4 a$o!t their performance after the appraisals in view point of 2>E of the managers $!t 11E has denied any s!ch feed$ac4 system in place.

<. )o yo! involve the employees to set their Jey "erformance AreasK a( Des $( Lo

/2

A!&)80(0C

A majority of <2E of the sample has informed that the employees have a say when it comes to setting their 4ey res!lt areas and ..E has disregarded this option.

2. Fhat are the retention tools which have gained pop!larity amongst the employeesK "lease rate the options on a scale of 1 to 20 1 $eing the lowest. i( #tress Management j( For4 life $alance />

4( ,areer development l( Employees "articipation in decision ma4ing m( ,o!nselingQ =eed$ac4 n( Rewards and Recognition #chemes o( Employee Referral #cheme p( Retirement "lans A!&)80(0C

Employee participation in decision ma4ing to $e the most pop!lar engagement tool amongst the managers closely followed $y Rewards and recognition schemes0 ne?t is efforts on ,areer develoment. For4 life $alance seem to $e the ne?t priority0 ne?t in line is Employee referral scheme. #tress management and ,o!nselingQ =eed$ac4 are then regarded as important and Retirement plans s!rprisingly seem to $e the least effective.

91

>. Are incentives lin4ed to achievement of individ!al goalsK a( Des $( Lo A!&)80(0C

91

<2E of the managers have agreed to a close association of incentives and individ!al goals $!t ..E has denied any s!ch association.

11. Fhat factors of the rewards scheme contri$!te the most in retaining the employeesK "lease rate the options on a scale of 1 to <0 1 $eing the lowest. a( ,ompensation and $enefit programmes $( #toc4 ownership and profit sharing c( Recognition programmes d( &dea collection schemes lin4ed to rewards for idea generation 9.

e( Long service and good performance awards f( ,ompetitive compensation pac4ages g( Material $enefits li4e trips0 food and disco!nt co!pons0 etc. A!&)80(0C

,ompensation & 6enefit programs are o$served as the most effective rewards scheme closely followed $y ,ompetitive compensation pac4ages. &dea collection scheme is the ne?t important tool and Long service & good performance awards follow that. Le?t in line is #toc4 ownership & "rofit sharing. Material $enefits and Recognition programs have come !p as the least effective tools. 11. Fhat are the activities yo! cond!ct to $!ild the team+spirit in the organi7ationK a( #mall team recreational activities0 s!ch as cric4et0 trips to the cinema $( #ocial activities0 s!ch as family gatherings c( ,omm!nity o!treach activities s!ch as vol!nteering and f!nd+raising d( Any other0 please specify

98

A!&)80(0C

3nly two of the options have received some response when as4ed a$o!t the efforts in the areas of team $!ilding in the organi7ation. ;ere #mall team recreational activities are the most preferred way and some importance is given to #ocial activities in the organi7ations s!rveyed.

1.. ;ow often do yo! cond!ct training programsK

A!&)80(0C

9/

9:E of the organi7ations %!arterly cond!ct training programs in their organi7ation while ..E cond!ct it monthly and 11E of the sample s!rveyed cond!ct the training sessions as and when re%!ired. 11E of them also cond!ct it yearly.

18. At what level of hierarchy in the organi7ation do yo! cond!ct these training programmesK a( ;igher level $( Middle level

99

c( Lower level A!&)80(0C

99E of the organi7ations cond!ct training session for each and every level of the employees while 12E of the organi7ations cond!ct it for Middle level and lower level of the employees while >E of the samples cond!ct it for ;igher level only.

1/. Fhat is the o$jective of training the employeesK a( To enhance their c!rrent set of s4ills as per the organi7ationAs re%!irement $( To !nleash the hidden s4illsQ talent c( To !pdate them on the technological advancements 9:

d( To fill the gap of e?pected+act!al performance e( All of the a$ove f( Any other0 please specify

A!&)80(0C

A com$ination of all the options has scored the highest when as4ed a$o!t the o$jective of training the employees. &ndivid!ally0 enhancing the c!rrent s4ills as per the organi7ationAs re%!irement0 !nleashing the hidden s4illsQ talent and !pdating them on the technological advancement have also scored well.

19. &s there a provision of fle?i$ility in terms of wor4ing ho!rsK "lease tic4 the appropriate option. a( =le?+time $( Telecomm!ting c( 5o$ #haring d( Any other

9<

A!&)80(0C

Fhen %!estioned a$o!t providing fle?i$ility in terms of wor4ing ho!rs0 ma?im!m managers agreed to provide fle?+time. Telecomm!ting0 5o$ sharing0 a com$ination of all these options and any other0 each has scored e%!ally.

1:. )o yo! thin4 the c!rrent engagement policies are effective in retaining the employees in the organi7ationK a( Des $( Lo

A!&)80(0C 92

:<E of the managers agreed that the engagement strategies of their organi7ation help in retaining the employees in the organi7ation while 88E has disagreed on this fact.

1<. Fhat percent+decrease range have yo! o$served d!e to the efforts in retaining employeesK a( 1 P 9 E $( 9 P 11E c( 11 & a$ove A!&)80(0C

9>

;alf of the organi7ations o$served 9+11E of retention d!e to the implementation of engagement strategies in the organi7ations and other half has o$served 1+9E of retention d!e to the strategies followed.

12. &n general0 how do the employees respond to s!ch engagement toolsK a( "ositively $( Legatively c( &ndifferent A!&)80(0C

:1

:<E of the managers have o$served positive effect on the employees of the engagement strategies while ..E said it is indifferent for the employees and 11E has responded negatively.

1>. ;ave yo! come !p with any innovative idea for retaining employeesK "lease mention. A!&)80(0C Majority of the sample s!rvey has not $een a$le to come !p with any of the innovative ideas in line with retaining employees.

:1

:.

CHAPTER 3 V FINDINGS
1. To engage the wor4force0 most of the organi7ation s!rveyed periodicaly recognise employees and provides fle?i$le wor4ing ho!rs. .. Lowadays employees are involved in decision ma4ing in the organi7ation and majority of the employees agreed on this fact. 8. Most of the organi7ations allow their employees to participate in performance appraisals and to set their own Jey "erformance Areas. /. ,ompensation & 6enefit programs are o$served as the most effective rewards scheme 9. =or team $!ilding companies generally do small team recreational activities and social activities. :. Majority of the sample are loyal towards their organi7ation and they also recommend their friends and relatives to join the organi7ation. <. #tress management0 Retirement plans and For4 life $alance s!rprisingly seem to $e of least effective engagement strategies according to the employees. 2. Majority of the organi7ations agreed that the engagement strategies of their organi7ation help in retaining the employees in the organi7ation. >. Majority has o$served 9+11E of red!ced attrition rate d!e to the implementation of engagement strategies in the organi7ations.

:8

CHAPTER3 VI

A.= RECOMMENDATIONS

1. As contrary to what managers $elieve that decision ma4ing is the most effective tool0

the employees still prefer rewards and recognition. The Managers sho!ld foc!s on the rewards and recognition schemes in their organi7ation. .. "ractically people donAt give m!ch importance to stress management programs0 wor4 life $alance and retirement plans so there is scope of improvement in this area. 8. To increase employee engagement0 the organi7ations sho!ld a. "rovide variety- Tedio!s0 repetitive tas4s can ca!se $!rn o!t and $oredom over time. &f the jo$ re%!ires repetitive tas4s0 loo4 for ways to introd!ce variety $y rotating d!ties0 areas of responsi$ility0 delivery of service etc. $. ,ond!ct periodic meetings with employees to comm!nicate good news0 challenges and easy+to+!nderstand company financial information. Managers and s!pervisors sho!ld $e comforta$le comm!nicating with their staff0 and a$le to give and receive constr!ctive feed$ac4. c. &nd!lge in employee deployment if he feels he is not on the right jo$. "rovide an open environment. d. ,omm!nicate openly and clearly a$o!t whatHs e?pected of employees at every level + yo!r vision0 priorities0 s!ccess meas!res0 etc. e. *et to 4now employeesH interests0 goals0 stressors0 etc. #how an interest in their well+$eing and do what it ta4es ena$le them to feel more f!lfilled and $etter $alanced in wor4 and life. :/

f. ,ele$rate individ!al0 team and organi7ational s!ccesses. ,atch employees doing something right0 and say OThan4 yo!.O /. As we have got a very good response from employees so the companies sho!ld have the engagement strategies to retain the employees.

CONCLUSION

Employee retention contin!es to remain a top priority at many organi7ations and one that companies increasingly view as a driver of $!siness strategy. 6!siness+critical 4nowledge can wal4 o!t the door when an employee leaves the company. Fhile employee retention fig!res have long $een !sed $y companies as a meas!re of their performance in developing an effective organi7ation0 this view of employee retention is not only o!tdated0 $!t these fig!res may not $e comprehensive eno!gh to tr!ly determine the organi7ationHs effectiveness. The concept of employee retention is more comple? than simply eval!ating employee t!rnover from one year to the ne?t. These fig!res of employee retention can $e somewhat misleading G it isnHt necessarily the n!m$er of employees an organi7ation loses0 itHs the n!m$er of top+performing employees that leave the company that sho!ld $e of concern. =or e?ample0 management is one of the 4ey reasons employees decide to stay or leave an organi7ation. &f there is high t!rnover among the management ran4s0 employees may also feel !nsta$le in this ever+changing environment. Det0 on the other hand0 it may not $e the $est $!siness strategy to retain a manager that is disli4ed $y employees. The $!siness strategy of employee retention act!ally lies with employee engagementI retention is an o!tcome of engagement. Fhat most organi7ations fail to reali7e is that employee engagement is the $iggest retention factor they have control over. Engaged employees not only stay longer with the organi7ation0 they are more prod!ctive0 more conscientio!s0 ma4e fewer errors0 and ta4e $etter care of c!stomers. The $!siness strategy of employee retention m!st incorporate methods that achieve a high level of employee engagement among the organi7ationHs top performers0 not necessarily the entire wor4force.

:9

&f effective engagement practices are in place0 the organi7ations can c!r$ the growing attrition rates especially in &T and 6an4ing sectors. Th!s the research st!dy proves the significance of engagement activities as a part of retention strategy in an organi7ation.

REFERENCES

http-QQ$w.$!sinessworld.inQ")=T!ploadQhrspecialTs!rvey.pdf http-QQwww.scri$d.comQdocQ81<1111QEmployee+Engagement+&mpact+on+6!siness+ 3!tcomes http-QQforewordcomm!nications.wordpress.comQ.112Q1:Q1<Qwhat+is+employee+ engagementQ http-QQe$n.$enefitnews.comQassetQarticleQ9./2.1Qstaying+c!rrentQ!nderstanding+employee+ engagement+thro!gh+glo$al+lens.html http-QQwee4.manoramaonline.comQcgi$inQMM3nline.dllQportalQepQtheFee4,ontent.doK contentTypeUE)&T3R&AL&sectionLameU,3SER E.1#T3RD&program&dU11<8<99<98&6ST&)UVVV&content&dU.91/.12 http-QQwww.$ayt.comQjo$Qcareer+article+1:21.adp http-QQwww.contentwriter.inQarticlesQhrQemployee+engagement.htm http-QQhromanager.comQ$logQhr+metrics+series+i+employee+engagementQ http-QQwww.insightory.comQviewQ918QemployeeTengagementTTr!nningTonTpeopleTpower http-QQwww.thc!.caQwor4placeQsatQp!$sQsatT11<:Tv11..pdf

::

ANNEBURE
)ear #irQMadam0 &0 Ms. Manali Agrawal0 am p!rs!ing Masters in "ersonnel Management and &nd!strial Relations from 5an4i )evi 6ajaj &nstit!te of Management #t!dies0 #.L.).T FomenAs Mniversity0 M!m$ai. & have c!rrently !nderta4en a year long research project on Employee Engagement & Retention level which is a part of the c!rric!l!m in partial f!lfillment of my )egree. & re%!est yo!r 4ind co+operation in filling !p the %!estionnaire and ret!rning it at the earliest. Jindly tic4 the relevant $o?es and re+send the %!estionnaire after completion. Than4ing Do!. Regards0 Manali Agrawal

:<

FUESTIONNAIRE FOR EMPLOYEES

ORGANIDATION DESIGNATION NAME EMAIL ID

C 1.)o yo! 4now what is e?pected of yo! at wor4K a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

C ..

At wor40 do yo! have the opport!nity to do what yo! do $est every dayK $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le

C 8. &n the last three months0 have yo! received recognition or praise for doing good wor4K a( #trongly Agree $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

:2

e( Lot Applica$le

C /. &s there someone at wor4 who enco!rages yo!r developmentK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le C 9.At wor40 do yo!r opinions seem to co!ntK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le C :. associates 'fellow employees( committed to doing %!ality wor4K a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le C <. last year0 have yo! had opport!nities at wor4 to learn and growK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le C 2. yo!r organi7ation compara$le to similar companiesK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le C >. organi7ation fair and o$jectiveK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree Are jo$ promotions in this $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree Are the pay and $enefits in $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree &n the $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree Are yo!r $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

:>

C 11. organi7ation policies clearly comm!nicated in the organi7ationK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le C 11. nowK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le C 1.. )o yo! recommend yo!r friendsQrelatives in yo!r organi7ationK a( #trongly Agree e( Lot Applica$le $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree $( Agree c( )isagree d( #trongly )isagree

Are

)o yo! see yo!rself contin!ing to wor4 for this organi7ation two years from

C18. #elect and ran4 the following engagement tools applica$le in yo!r organi7ation. "lease rate the options0 from 1+ 2 '1 $eing the lowest and 2 $eing the highest(. a( $( c( d( e( f( g( h( #tress Management For4 life $alance ,areer development Employees "articipation in decision ma4ing ,o!nsellingQ =eed$ac4 Rewards and Recognition #chemes Employee Referral #cheme Retirement "lans

<1

GTHANK YOUH

FUESTIONNAIRE FOR HR MANAGERS

ORGANIDATION DESIGNATION NAME EMAIL ID

1. )oes yo!r company have a clearly stated and p!$lished employment policyK a( Des $( Lo .. )oes yo!r company comm!nicate its corporate goals to all employeesK a( Des $( Lo <1

8. )o yo! comm!nicate what is e?pected o!t of the employeeK a(Des $( Lo /. Fhat are the engagement tools which have gained pop!larity amongst the employeesK "lease rate the options on a scale of 1 to 20 1 $eing the lowest. a( #tress Management $( For4 life $alance c( ,areer development d( Employees "articipation in decision ma4ing e( ,o!nsellingQ =eed$ac4 f( Rewards and Recognition #chemes g( Employee Referral #cheme h( Retirement "lans 9. Are incentives lin4ed to achievement of individ!al goalsK a( Des $( Lo :. Fhat factors of the rewards scheme contri$!te the most in engaging the employeesK "lease rate the options on a scale of 1 to <0 1 $eing the lowest. a( ,ompensation and $enefit programmes $( #toc4 ownership and profit sharing c( Recognition programmes d( &dea collection schemes lin4ed to rewards for idea generation e( Long service and good performance awards f( ,ompetitive compensation pac4ages g( Material $enefits li4e trips0 food and disco!nt co!pons0 etc.

<.

<. Fhat are the activities yo! cond!ct to $!ild the team+spirit in the organisationK a( #mall team recreational activities0 s!ch as cric4et0 trips to the cinema $( #ocial activities0 s!ch as family gatherings c( ,omm!nity o!treach activities s!ch as vol!nteering and f!nd+raising d( Any other0 please specify 2. ;ow often do yo! cond!ct training programsK

>. At what level of hierarchy in the organi7ation do yo! cond!ct these training programmesK a( ;igher level $( Middle level c( Lower level

11. Fhat is the o$jective of training the employeesK a( To enhance their c!rrent set of s4ills as per the organi7ationAs re%!irement $( To !nleash the hidden s4illsQ talent c( To !pdate them on the technological advancements d( To fill the gap of e?pected+act!al performance e( All of the a$ove f( Any other0 please specify

11. &s there a provision of fle?i$ility in terms of wor4ing ho!rsK "lease tic4 the appropriate option. a( =le?+time $( Telecomm!ting

<8

c( 5o$ #haring d( Any other 1.. )o yo! thin4 the c!rrent retention strategies are effective in red!cing attrition rateK a( Des $( Lo

18. Fhat percent+decrease range have yo! o$served d!e to the efforts in retaining employeesK a( 1 P 9 E $( 9 P 11E c( 11 & a$ove 1/. &n general0 how do the employees respond to s!ch engagement policiesK a( "ositively $( Legatively c( &ndifferent 19. ;ave yo! come !p with any innovative idea for engaging & retaining employeesK "lease mention.

TTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

T;ALJ D3M

</

<9