Final Copy of Disertation

A STUDY ON THE PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEES
REGARDING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
RESEARCH GUIDE: RESEARCHER:

DR. LEENA MEHTA HEMAL SHAH
YEAR OF SUBMISSION
APRIL, 2009
1
DISERTATION SUBMITTED
ON
THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF
MASTERS OF HUMAN RESROUCE MANGEMENT
IN THE
FACULTY OF SOCIAL WORK
FROM
MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF BARODA.

YEAR OF SUBMISSION
APRIL, 2009
2
(A STUDY OF PERCEPTION OF 70 EMPLOYEES REGARDING

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN TRANPEK LTD)

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:
10
‘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
organisation. The organisation must work to develop and nurture
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
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
11
• The employers and their ability to create the conditions that promote
employee engagement
• Interaction between employees at all levels.
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
12
problems and tensions that are fostered by actively disengaged workers can
cause great damage to an organization's functioning.
1.7 IMPORTANCE OF ENGAGEMENT
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
13
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
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
14
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.
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.
15
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
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.
16
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,
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:
17
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.
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
ENGAGEMENT – THE EVOLUTIONARY JOURNEY
Higher
How much people
want—and actually
Engagement
do—improve
Performance
business results
Correlation
Business
Positive
With
Commitment How much people want to

improve business results
Satisfaction
How much people
like it here
Lower
Employee Research over Time
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
19
work have been recognized in such lists as Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to
Work For.
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:
20
Without a link to company performance or other critical outcomes, measures
of engagement have little value. The whole idea behind engagement is that it
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
21
impact the work environment and making meaningful choices in the workplace
are critical components of employee empowerment. Development Dimensions
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.
23
Employee engagement is more than just the current HR 'buzzword'; it is
essential. In order for organizations to meet and surpass organizational
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.
24
1.14.2 Organisation Planning & Leadership:
Leadership- Clarity of Company Values

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.
25
Performance appraisal
Fair evaluation of an employee’s performance is an important criterion for
determining the level of employee engagement. The company which follows
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
26
employee matches his career goals which will make him enjoy his work and
he would ultimately be satisfied with his job.
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.
27
CHAPTER 2
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
28
discussed later, commitment and engagement are not considered to be one
and the same. Whilst commitment is an important element of
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)
29
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.
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.
30
2.2 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT DIFFERS:
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)
31
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
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:
32
• 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
• 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
66
levels of engagement and discussed the type of actions organisations can
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
67
notes the use of the attitude survey as a useful tool for collecting, measuring
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
68
build, as well as the sources of friction within an organisation, which can then
be addressed.
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
69
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.
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
70
In their employee attitude and engagement survey, CIPD (2006c) measured
overall engagement but also outline that their research suggests that
engagement has three components:
•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
71
(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.
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
72
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,
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
73
quantified. Although some of the literature places employees into categories
of ‘engaged’ or ‘disengaged,’ or ‘highly’ or ‘moderately’ engaged, there is a
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,
74
emotional and physical engagement. Several case studies identified to
illustrate that the true value of engagement surveys lies in how they are used
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;
75
• 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
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
76
of employee engagement might be optimal which might differ between
different organisations;
• 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
77
• 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.
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
78
is to be endorsed in terms of good practice in people management and the
softer benefits this confers to organisations.
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
79
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
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
80
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
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
81
and commitment interchangeably. Yet commitment is a well established
construct, generally separated into either affective or continues commitment
(Mowday, Steer, & Porters, 1979).
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
82
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
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’
83
(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
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
84
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
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
85
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.
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
86
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
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
87
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
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.
88
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.
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
89
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.
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
90
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
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
91
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’.
• 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
92
motivated then the customers will be happy and the shareholders will then
benefit through the company’s success.”
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.
93
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The objective of the study is;

• 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
94
on the basis of work enviourment, rewards, employees role in the
organisation, Organisation planning & leadership, Training development,
Career Growth & Advancement & organisation Culture & communication.
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 11.4286
31-40 11 15.7143
41-50 38 54.2857
50 onwards 13 18.5714
TOTAL 70 100
The above table shows the total number of the respondents according to the
given age group.
DISTRIBUTION AS PER GENDER:

Male 68 97.14286
Female 2 2.857143
Transgender 0 0
Not given 0 0
TOTAL 70 100
The above table shows the ratio between the male & female in study.
DISTRIBUTION AS PER EDUCATION QUALIFICATION:

Bachelors 35 50
Masters 19 27.14286
Others 16 22.85714
96
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:

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:

Personnel & HRM 3 4.285714286
ERP 3 4.285714286
Information Technology 1 1.428571429
Administration 1 1.428571429
Account & Finance 7 10
legislations 4 5.714285714
Excise 1 1.428571429
Stores 1 1.428571429
Safety, Heath & Enviourment 13 18.57142857
Marketing 5 7.142857143
R&D 4 5.714285714
T. C Plant 3 4.285714286
QA 2 2.857142857
Material 2 2.857142857
Projects 4 5.714285714
Exports 1 1.428571429
Business Development 2 2.857142857
EPD 6 8.571428571
Operations 3 4.285714286
Export Marketing 1 1.428571429
BIO 0 0
Others 2 2.857142857
TOTAL 70 100
97
The above table shows that the employee ratio from different department in
an organisation.
DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES CADRE:

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:

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.
98
WHAT DO I GET AS AN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE?
EMPLOYEES ROLE IN ORGANISATION:
1) EMPLOYEE LIKE WHAT THE WORK THEY DO:
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:
SD 1 1.43
D 9 12.87
A 52 74.29
SA 8 11.41
TOTAL 70 100
99
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%
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:
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.

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
100
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.

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.

SD 2 2.86
D 3 4.29
A 15 21.43
SA 50 71.42
TOTAL 70 100
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
101
strongly agree with that, they understands the importance of their role to the
success of the organization.
WORK ENVIRONMENT
7) EMPLOYEES BELIEVE THAT THEIR WORK AREA IS ADEQUATELY

CLEAN & SAFE.

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:
SD 2 2.86
D 6 8.57
A 46 65.71
SA 16 22.86
TOTAL 70 100
102
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.,
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.

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.
103
WHAT DO I GIVE TO THE ORGANISATION?
EMPLOYEES RELATIONSHIP WITH IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR
10) EMPLOYEE SUPERVISOR TREATS THEM WITH RESPECT

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%
104
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.
12) EMPLOYEE SUPERVISOR ACKNOWLEDGES WHEN THEY DO THEIR

WORK WELL.
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.

SD 0 0
D 1 1.43
A 32 45.71
SA 37 52.86
TOTAL 70 100
105
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.
14) EMPLOYEE SUPERVISOR HELPS THEM DEVELOP TO THEIR

FULLEST POTENTIAL.
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.

SD 1 1.43
D 3 4.29
A 59 84.28
106
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
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
SD 1 1.43
D 5 7.14
A 59 84.29
SA 5 7.14
TOTAL 70 100
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
SD 1 1.43
D 5 7.14
A 53 75.71
107
SA 11 15.72
TOTAL 70 100
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 .
18) THERE IS ADEQUATE FOLLOW-THROUGH OF DEPARTMENTAL

OBJECTIVES
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.

SD 2 2.86
D 3 4.29
108
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
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.

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
109
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.
22) EMPLOYEE LIKE THE PEOPLE WHOM THEY WORK WITH IN

ORGANIZATION.
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
110
HOW CAN I DEVELOP PROFESSIONALLY
TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT:
23) ORGANIZATION PROVIDES AS MUCH INITIAL & ONGOING

TRAINING AS EMPLOYEE NEED.

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.
SD 1 1.43
D 8 11.43
A 49 70
SA 12 17.14
111
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.
25) ORGANIZATION PROVIDES TRAINING OR EXPERIENCES TO HELP

THEM TO EXPLORE OTHER POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN THE
COMPANY.

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:
112
26) THIS ORGANIZATION TAKES A GENUINE INTEREST IN THE WELL-
BEING OF EMPLOYEES.

SD 0 0
D 8 11.43
A 39 55.71
SA 23 32.86
TOTAL 70 100
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.

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 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.
113
SD 1 1.43
D 3 4.29
A 42 60
SA 24 34.28
TOTAL 70 100
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.

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.
114
BIVARIATE ANALYSIS
TABLE 1
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & THE EMPLOYEE’S

ROLE IN THE ORGANISATION.
PARTICULARS HIGH LOW TOTAL

Age 21-30 2 6 8
Row % 25 75 100
Column % 5.12820513 19.3548387
Age 31-40 7 4 11
Row% 63.6363636 36.3636364 100
Column% 17.9487179 12.9032258
Age 41-50 22 16 38
Row% 57.8947368 42.1052632 100
Column% 56.4102564 51.6129032
Age 50 & onwards 8 5 13
Row% 61.5384615 38.4615385 100
Column% 20.5128205 16.1290323
Total 39 31 70
Row% 55.7142857 44.2857143 100
Column% 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
115
(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
(16.1290323%).
TABLE 2
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & THE WORK

ENVIOURMENT IN THE ORGANISATION:

Age 21-30 2 6 8
Row % 25 75 100
Column % 7.4074074 13.953
Age 31-40 7 4 11
Row% 63.636364 36.364 100
Column% 25.925926 9.3023
Age 41-50 12 26 38
Row% 31.578947 68.421 100
Column% 44.444444 60.465
Row% 46.153846 53.846 100
Column% 22.222222 16.279
Total 27 43 70
Row% 38.571429 61.429 100
Column% 100 100
the age of employees and the work enviourment in the organisation. Here, 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
116
(22.222222%).

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
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & THE REWARDS

SYSTEMS IN THE ORGANISATION:

Age 21-30 3 5 8
Row % 37.5 62.5 100
Column % 25 8.62069
Age 31-40 2 9 11
Row% 18.182 81.8182 100
Column% 16.667 15.5172
Age 41-50 5 33 38
Row% 13.158 86.8421 100
Column% 41.667 56.8966
Row% 15.385 84.6154 100
Column% 16.667 18.9655
Total 12 58 70
Row% 17.143 82.8571 100
Column% 100 100
the age of employees and the rewards system in the organisation. Here, the
117
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
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & THE EMPLOYEES

RELATIONSHIP WITH IMMIDIATE SUPERVISOR:

Age 21-30 2 6 8
Row % 25 75 100
Column % 5.7143 17.143
Age 31-40 5 6 11
Row% 45.455 54.545 100
Column% 14.286 17.143
Age 41-50 20 18 38
Row% 52.632 47.368 100
Column% 57.143 51.429
Row% 61.538 38.462 100
Column% 22.857 14.286
Total 35 35 70
Row% 50 50 100
Column% 100 100
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
118
(5.7143%), 31-40 are 5 (14.286%), 41-50 are 20 (57.143%) and 50 &
onwards are 8 (22.857%).

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

Age 21-30 3 5 8
Row % 37.5 62.5 100
Column % 16.667 10
Age 31-40 3 8 11
Row% 27.273 72.727 100
Column% 16.667 16
Age 41-50 9 29 38
Row% 23.684 76.416 100
Column% 50 54
Row% 23.077 76.923 100
Column% 16.667 20
Total 18 52 70
Row% 25.714 74.286 100
Column% 100 100
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & ORGANISATION
PLANNING & LEADERSHIP WITH THE ORGANISATION:
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
119
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
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & ORGANISATION

CULTURE & COMMUNICATION WITH THE ORGANISATION:

Age 21-30 5 3 8
Row % 62.5 37.5 100
Column % 11.628 11.111
Age 31-40 5 6 11
Row% 45.455 54.545 100
Column% 11.628 22.222
Age 41-50 25 13 38
Row% 65.789 34.211 100
Column% 58.14 48.148
Row% 61.538 38.462 100
Column% 18.605 18.519
Total 43 27 70
Row% 61.429 38.571 100
Column% 100 100
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
120
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%).
TABLE 7
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & TRAINING &

DEVELOPMENT WITH THE ORGANISATION:

Age 21-30 3 5 8
Row % 37.5 62.5 100
Column % 12.5 10.87
Age 31-40 1 10 11
Row% 9.0909 90.909 100
Column% 4.1667 21.739
Age 41-50 17 21 38
Row% 44.737 55.263 100
Column% 70.833 45.652
Row% 23.077 76.923 100
Column% 12.5 21.739
Total 24 46 70
Row% 34.286 65.714 100
Column% 100 100
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.
121
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
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE AGE & CAREER GROWTH

AND ADVANCEMENT WITH IN THE ORGANISATION:

Age 21-30 6 2 8
Row % 75 25 100
Column % 13.953 7.4074
Age 31-40 7 4 11
Row% 63.636 36.364 100
Column% 16.279 14.815
Age 41-50 22 16 38
Row% 57.895 42.105 100
Column% 51.163 59.259
Row% 61.538 38.462 100
Column% 18.605 18.519
Total 43 27 70
Row% 61.429 38.571 100
Column% 100 100
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
122
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
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EDUCATION

QUALIFICATION & THE EMPLOYEE’S ROLE IN THE ORGANISATION.

Graduate 18 17 35
Row % 51.42857 48.571 100
Column % 46.15385 54.839
Post Graduate 9 10 19
Row% 47.36842 52.632 100
Column% 23.07692 32.258
Others 12 4 16
Row% 75 25 100
Column% 30.76923 12.903
Total 39 31 70
Row% 55.71429 44.286 100
Column% 100 100
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
123
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

QUALIFICATION & THE WORK ENVIOURMENT IN THE ORGANISATION:

Graduate 13 22 35
Row % 37.14286 62.857 100
Column % 52 48.889
Row% 26.31579 73.684 100
Column% 20 31.111
Others 7 9 16
Row% 43.75 56.25 100
Column% 28 20
Total 25 45 70
Row% 35.71429 64.286 100
Column% 100 100
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

high, falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 13 (52%), Post
Graduate are 5 (20%) and others are 7 (28%).
124
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

QUALIFICATION & THE REWARDS IN THE ORGANISATION:

Graduate 6 29 35
Row % 17.14286 82.857 100
Column % 50 50
Row% 26.31579 73.684 100
Column% 41.66667 24.138
Others 1 15 16
Row% 6.25 93.75 100
Column% 8.333333 25.862
Total 12 58 70
Row% 17.14286 82.857 100
Column% 100 100
The above table shows the relationship the level of engagement among
employees between the education qualifications & the rewards in the
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%).
125
TABLE 12
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EDUCATION QUALIFICATION &

THE EMPLOYEES RELATIONSHIP WITH IMMIDIATE SUPERVISOR THE
ORGANISATION:

Graduate 22 13 35
Row % 62.85714 37.143 100
Column % 55 43.333
Row% 57.89474 42.105 100
Column% 27.5 26.667
Others 7 9 16
Row% 43.75 56.25 100
Column% 17.5 30
Total 40 30 70
Row% 57.14286 42.857 100
Column% 100 100
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%).
126
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

QUALIFICATION & ORGANISATION PLANNING & LEADERSHIP WITH
THE ORGANISATION:

Graduate 7 28 35
Row % 20 80 100
Column % 38.88889 53.846
Row% 42.10526 57.895 100
Column% 44.44444 21.154
Others 3 13 16
Row% 18.75 81.25 100
Column% 16.66667 25
Total 18 52 70
Row% 25.71429 74.286 100
Column% 100 100
employees between the education qualifications & organization planning &
leadership. Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High &
The 18 employees who believe the organization planning & leadership in the
organisation is high, falls in the education qualification of; the Graduate are 7
127
(38.88889%), Post Graduate are 8 (44.44444%) and others are 3
(16.66667%).
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

QUALIFICATION & ORGANISATION CULTURE & COMMUNICATION
WITH THE ORGANISATION:

Graduate 21 14 35
Row % 60 40 100
Column % 47.72727 53.846
Row% 68.42105 31.579 100
Column% 29.54545 23.077
Others 10 6 16
Row% 62.5 37.5 100
Column% 22.72727 23.077
Total 44 26 70
Row% 62.85714 37.143 100
Column% 100 100
employees between the education qualifications & organization culture &
communication. Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High &
128
(22.72727%).
(53.846%), Post Graduate are 6 (23.077%) and others are 6 (23.077%).
TABLE 15

QUALIFICATION & TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT WITH THE
ORGANISATION:

Graduate 12 23 35
Row % 34.28571 65.714 100
Column % 50 50
Row% 42.10526 57.895 100
Column% 33.33333 23.913
Others 4 12 16
Row% 25 75 100
Column% 16.66667 26.087
Total 24 46 70
Row% 34.28571 65.714 100
Column% 100 100
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
129
The 24 employees who believe the organization training & development in the
(50%), Post Graduate are 8 (33.33333%) and others are 4 (16.66667%).
(50%), Post Graduate are 11 (23.913%) and others are 12 (26.087%).
TABLE 16

QUALIFICATION & CAREER GROWTH AND ADVANCEMENT WITH IN
THE ORGANISATION:

Graduate 21 14 35
Row % 60 40 100
Column % 47.72727 53.846
Row% 73.68421 26.316 100
Column% 31.81818 19.231
Others 9 7 16
Row% 56.25 43.75 100
Column% 20.45455 26.923
Total 44 26 70
Row% 62.85714 37.143 100
Column% 100 100
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.
130
(20.45455%).
(53.846%), Post Graduate are 5 (19.231%) and others are 7 (26.923%).
TABLE 17
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIENCE & THE

EMPLOYEE’S ROLE IN THE ORGANISATION.

Experience <=20 18 24 42
Row % 42.857143 57.1429 100
Column % 46.153846 77.4194
Experience > 21 21 7 28
Row% 75 25 100
Column% 53.846154 22.5806
Total 39 31 70
Row% 55.714286 44.2857 100
Column% 100 100 0
employees between the employees experience & employee role in the
(44.2857%) employees believes that the engagement is low among
employees in the organisation.
131
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,
TABLE 18

WORK ENVIOURMENT IN THE ORGANISATION:

Row % 47.619048 52.381 100
Column % 66.666667 55
Experience 21 onwards 10 18 28
Row% 35.714286 64.2857 100
Column% 33.333333 45
Total 30 40 70
Row% 42.857143 57.1429 100
Column% 100 100 0
employees between the employees experience & work enviourment in the
believe that the engagement is high among employees & others 40
(57.1429%) employees believe that the engagement is low among employees
132
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%).

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

REWARDS IN THE ORGANISATION:

Row % 19.047619 80.9524 100
Column % 66.666667 58.6207
Row% 14.285714 85.7143 100
Column% 33.333333 41.3793
Total 12 58 70
Row% 17.142857 82.8571 100
Column% 100 100 0
employees between the employees experience & the rewards systems in the
believe that the engagement is high among employees & others 58
(82.8571%) employees believe that the engagement is low among employees
133
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,
TABLE 20
HOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIECE & THE

EMPLOYEES RELATIONSHIP IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR WITH THE
ORGANISATION:

Row % 26.190476 73.8095 100
Column % 61.111111 59.6154
Row% 25 75 100
Column% 38.888889 40.3846
Total 18 52 70
Row% 25.714286 74.2857 100
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
134
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%).
TABLE 21
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIECE &

ORGANISATION PLANNING & LEADERSHIP WITH THE ORGANISATION:

Row % 26.190476 73.8095 100
Column % 61.111111 59.6154
Row% 25 75 100
Column% 38.888889 40.3846
Total 18 52 70
Row% 25.714286 74.2857 100
employees between the employees experience & the organisation planning &
leadership. Here, the above table refinement is on the basis of the High &
(74.2857%) employees believes that the engagement is low among
135
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,
TABLE 22
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIECE &

ORGANISATION CULTURE & COMMUNICATION WITH IN THE
ORGANISATION:

Row % 54.761905 45.2381 100
Column % 52.272727 73.0769
Row% 75 25 100
Column% 47.727273 26.9231
Total 44 26 70
Row% 62.857143 37.1429 100
Column% 100 100 0
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
136
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%).
TABLE 23
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIECE & TRAINING &

DEVELOPMENT WITH THE ORGANISATION:

Row % 28.571429 71.4286 100
Column % 50 65.2174
Row% 42.857143 57.1429 100
Column% 50 34.7826
Total 24 46 70
Row% 34.285714 65.7143 100
Column% 100 100 0
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
137
46 (65.7143%) employees believes that the engagement is low among
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
SHOWS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE EXPERIECE & CAREER

GROWTH AND ADVANCEMENT WITH IN THE ORGANISATION:

Row % 61.904762 38.0952 100
Column % 59.090909 57.1429
Row% 64.285714 42.8571 107.14
Column% 40.909091 42.8571
Total 42 28 70
Row% 62.857143 37.153957 100
Column% 100 100 0
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
138
employees & others 28 (37.153957%) employees believes that the
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:
139
NOT
PARTICULARS ENGAGED TOTAL
ENGAGED
Employee role in the organisation 40 30 70
Row % 57.142857 42.857143 100
Column % 34.188034 18.404908
Work Enviourment 25 45 70
Row% 35.714286 64.285714 100
Column% 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 70
Row% 57.142857 42.857143 100
Column% 34.188034 18.404908 25
Organisation Planning & Leadership 18 52 70
Row % 25.714 74.286 100
Column % 13.846 34.667
Organisation Culture & Communication 44 26 70
Row% 62.857 37.143 100
Column% 33.846 17.333
Training & Development 24 46 70
Row% 34.286 65.714 100
Column% 18.462 30.667
Career Growth & Advancement 44 26 70
Row% 62.857 37.143 100
Column% 33.846 17.333
Total 247 323 560
Row% 44.107143 57.678571 100
Column% 100 100
TOTAL 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
140
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%)
141
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.
142
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.
143
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
144
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
145
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.
146
• 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
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
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:
147
• The employee’s role in the organisation: 39 (55.71429%)
employee’s education qualification and employee role with in the
relationship between the employee’s education qualification and
employee role with in the organisation with in the organisation.
employee’s education qualification and work enviourment with in the
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.
leadership.
the education qualification and organization culture & communication &
148
between the education qualification and organization culture &
communication.
• Training & development with in the organisation: 24 (34.28571%)
education qualification and training & development & others 46
the education qualification and training & development.
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.
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.
149
• The employee’s relationship with immediate supervisor the
organisation: 8 (25.714286%) employees believe that there is high
relationship between the employee’s experience and employee’s
relationship with immediate supervisor in the organisation & others 52
the employee’s experience and employee’s relationship with immediate
supervisor in the organisation.
leadership.
(25.714286%)) employees believe that there is high relationship
between the experience and organization culture & communication &
between the experience and organization culture & communication.
• Training & development with in the organisation: 44 (62.857143%)
experience and training & development & others 26 (37.1429%)
experience and training & development.
(34.285714%) employees believe that there is high relationship
between the experience and career growth & advancement & others 46
the experience and career growth & advancement.
CONCLUSION
150
• 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.
• 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.
151
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
corporate objectives & the employee engagement. The higher the
adequate follow-through of corporate objectives, the higher will be the
152
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
engagement. The higher the employees have a good understanding of
organization is doing financially, the higher will be the engagement of
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
153
them & takes to advance their career, the higher will be the
• 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.
• 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
SUGGESTIONS
154
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

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:
155
• 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.
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.
156
• 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
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.
157
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.
158
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.
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.
159
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.
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.
160
WEBPAGE REFERRED:
www.haygroup.com
www.hrguru.com
www.hrcite.com
www.hr.com
www.askhrd.com
www.towersperrin.com
www.chrm.com
www.wikipdiea.com
161
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
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____
162
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:
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.
163
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.
I am given enough authority to make decisions I need to
2
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.
I understand the importance of my role to the success of
6
the organization.
(H) WORK ENVIRONMENT: SD D A SA
7 My work area is adequately clean & safe.
There is adequate noise control to allow me to focus on
8
my work.
(I) REWARDS: SD D A SA
I receive a fair return (financial rewards, job satisfaction
9
etc) from the organization for the efforts I give in my job.
WHAT DO I GIVE TO THE ORGANISATION?
EMPLOYEES RELATIONSHIP WITH IMMEDIATE

(J) SD D A SA
SUPERVISOR:
10 My supervisor treats me with respect.
My supervisor handles my work-related & personal issues
11
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
15 There is adequate planning of corporate objectives
16 There is adequate follow-through of corporate objectives
164
17 There is adequate planning of departmental objectives
18 There is adequate follow-through of departmental objectives
(L) ORGANISATION CULTURE & COMMUNICATION: SD D A SA
I have a good understanding of how organization is doing
19
financially.
Organization gives me enough recognition for work that is
20
done well.
21 I 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
Organization provides as much initial & ongoing training as I
23
need.
I trust what the company tells me it takes to advance my
24
career.
Organization provides training or experiences to help me
25
explore other possible opportunities within the company.
(N) CAREER GROWTH AND ADVANCEMENT: SD D A SA
This organization takes a genuine interest in the well being of
26
employees.
There are opportunities for me to advance me career in this
27
organization.
You receive effective support to develop your skills and
28
talents.
It is clear to me how to advance my careers in this
29
organization.
“Thank You for Your Cooperation”
165

Final Copy of Disertation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Final Copy of Disertation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

A STUDY ON THE PERCEPTION OF EMPLOYEES

REGARDING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

RESEARCH GUIDE: RESEARCHER:

RESEARCH GUIDE: RESEARCHER:

(A STUDY OF PERCEPTION OF 70 EMPLOYEES REGARDING

RESEARCH GUIDE: RESEARCHER:

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

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

While Miller (1987) suggests that HRM relates to:

"Those decisions and actions which concern the management of employees

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

1.2 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

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

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

The Gallup Organization coined the term employee engagement, in its

1.3 EVOLUTION OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

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

Employee engagement is the thus the level of commitment and

An engaged employee is aware of business context, and works with

Engagement is most closely associated with the existing construction of job

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

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

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

The Business Communicator (2005) reports definitions of engagement from

Development Dimensions International

Employee engagement definitions vary from “a positive emotional connection

IES defines engagement as:

Institute for Employment Studies

1.5 ASPECTS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

Three basic aspects of employee engagement according to the global studies

1.6 CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

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

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

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

1.7 IMPORTANCE OF ENGAGEMENT

Engagement is important for managers to cultivate given that disengagement

1.8 THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONSTRUCTS:

1.8.1 Attitude or behavior:

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

1.8.2 Individual or Group:

1.9 RELATED CONSTRUCTS:

1.9.1 Job Satisfaction:

1.9.2 Organizational commitment.

1.9.3 Organizational citizenship behavior.

1.9.4 Job involvement.

1.10 EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT- DIFFERENCE:

Employee Engagement is the level of commitment an employee has towards

A fully engaged employee is intellectually and emotionally bound with the

The difference between employee satisfaction, employee effectiveness and

Commitment How much people want to

Employee Research over Time

1.11 FOCUS ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

Organizations are focusing on the meaning of employee engagement and

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

Several standardized tools exist for assessing employee engagement and

1.11.1 Create a simple and focused index of workplace engagement:

1.11.2 Allow for benchmarking:

1.11.3 Direct action:

1.11.4 Show relationship to company performance:

1.12 ENGAGEMENT PREDICTS ORGANIZATIONAL SUCCESS:

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

1.12.1 Elements of Engagement

1.12.4 Interpersonal Harmony-Employees feel more engaged when they work