Employee Engagement Sheme

Chapter 1.INTRODUCTION

1.1 Concept of employee engagement

1.1.1 Defining Engagement

One of the challenges of defining engagement is the lack of a universal definition of employee engagement, as a research focus on employees’ work engagement is relatively new.

More often than not, definitions of engagement include cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components. The cognitive aspect of engagement includes employees’ beliefs about the organization, management and working conditions. The emotional components (or beliefs) defines employees positive attitude, how they “feel” about their employer, company’s values, leaders and working conditions (Kahn, 1990; Towers Perrin, 2003; Robinson et al. 2004).

The behavioral components measure the willingness to act in certain ways, skills which employees offer (Towers Perrin, 2003) and willingness to go the “extra mile” — some of these components are often used for the employee engagement definition.

Academic literature presents a couple of definitions of engagement. One of the first and most recognizable definitions of engagement is provided by Kahn (1990) and it suggests that personal engagement is: “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performance (p.694)”. His view concentrates on the personal engagement of workers in order to emphasize performance improvement through employing and expressing themselves on physical, cognitive and emotional levels during their performance. In the case of disengagement employees withdraw from role performance and try to defend themselves physically, cognitively or emotionally (Kahn, 1990).

In summary, following Kahn (1990), engagement means the employees’ psychological presence at work.

Burnout researchers suggest that engagement is the opposite, a positive

antitheses of burnout (Maslach et al. 2001).

Maslach et al. (2001) state that “engagement is characterized by energy, involvement, and efficacy (p.416)”, the direct opposite of the three burnout dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and ineffectiveness.

Schaufeli et al. (2002), present work engagement as contrastive concept to burnout, they define work engagement “as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption (p. 74)”. They also state that engagement is not a momentary and specific state, but it is “a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behavior” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p. 74).

In his research Harter et al. (2002) referred to employee engagement as “the individuals’ involvement and satisfaction with as well as enthusiasm for work” (p. 269).

Three well-known organizations in the human resource area also offer definitions on the term. Perrin’s Global Workforce Study (Towers Perrin, 2003) definition defines engagement “as employees’ willingness and ability to contribute to company success”, by putting “discretionary effort into their work, in the form of extra time, brainpower and energy (p.1)”. Gallup organization defines employee engagement as the involvement with and enthusiasm for work. Gallup as cited by Dernovsek (2008) likens employee engagement to a positive employees’ emotional attachment and employees’ commitment. Institute of employment studies (Robinson et al. 2004) defines employee engagement as “a positive attitude held by the employee towards the organization and its value. An engaged employee is aware of business context, and works with colleagues to improve performance within the job for the benefit of the organization. The organization must work to develop and nurture engagement, which requires a two-way relationship between employer and employee” (p.9).

After the process of synthesizing definitions and conceptual frameworks of employee engagement, Shuck and Wollard suggested an emergent definition of

the concept (Shuck and Wollard, 2010).

They propose to define employee engagement as “an individual employee’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral state directed toward desired organizational outcomes” (Shuck and Wollard, 2010, p.103).

1.1.2 Similarity and distinction from other organizational constructs

————————————————-

Engagement is related to, but distinct from established organizational behavior constructs such as organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), job satisfaction, or job involvement.

There clear overlaps with organizational commitment and OCB, but there are also differences. Even thought engagement includes many elements of commitment and OCB, but none of them reflect the two way nature of engagement – the organization works on engaging the employee, who in respond chooses the level of engagement to offer back (Robinson et al., 2004).

First of all let’s discuss engagement and organizational commitment. Many researchers suggested that engagement is related to employees’ voluntary behavioral aspects (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2008; Saks, 2006), while organizational commitment is more attitudinal in nature including affective, continuance, and normative domains (Song and Kim, 2009).

Saks (2006) also states that organizational commitment refers only to the employees’ loyalty, attitudes and attachment to the organization and this in turn brings the benefit of employment. But engagement is not an attitude, it is a degree of how attentive and absorbed employees are in their roles (Saks, 2006).In addition, commitment focuses on the organization, while the engagement focuses on the tasks (Maslach et al. 2001).

Talking about difference between employee engagement and OCB, it should be said that employee engagement focuses on more formal role performance actions, which are not voluntary and not extra-role, whereas OCB relates to the voluntary (Saks, 2006) and informal intentions to help coworkers or the organization on top of what is expected from them (Robinson et al., 2004).

Job satisfaction has been defined as “the primary affective reactions of an individual to various facets of the job and to job experiences” (Igbaria and Buimaraes, 1993, p. 148).

This and other definitions of job satisfaction emphasize the affective nature of the construct (Song et al., 2012).

In contrast to job satisfaction, engagement is considered a voluntary emotional commitment that can be influenced by peer/supervisor/organizational support, mutual trust and personal enthusiasm (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007; Saks, 2006).

Job satisfaction is the extent to which employees use work as a source of fulfillment of their needs, by which they feel comfortable or avoid feelings of dissatisfaction. It does not encompass employees’ relationship with the work itself (Maslach et al. 2001).

Similarities between job involvement and the involvement aspect of engagement at work can also be found. Lawler and Hall (1970) defined job involvement as the degree to which the employee perceives the job situation as important part of their life, because of the opportunity it gives to satisfy a persons’ needs. From this, one can understand that job involvement tends to depend on the importance of needs and the potential of the job to satisfy the individual needs of the employee (May, et al., 2004).

Therefore, involvement is the result of the employees’ perception of the need satisfying abilities of the job. Engagement differs from involvement, as it is concerned more with how the workers employ themselves during job performance. Furthermore, engagement includes the employee’s energy and emotions (May, et al., 2004).

To summarize the above it can be said that the meaning of engagement can sometimes overlap with other constructs in organizational behavior, however it is still a distinct and unique construct, which embraces cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance.

1.1.3 Employee engagement models and theory

Kahn’s need satisfying approach

The first time employee engagement was mention in an Academy of Management Journal article called “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work” (Kahn, 1990).

In his article, Kahn defined personal engagement as “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s “preferred self” in a task behaviors that promote connection to work and to others, personal presence, and active full role performance (p.700)”.According to Kahn employees can be engaged on a physical, emotional and cognitive level: these levels are significantly affected by three psychological domains: meaningfulness, safety and availability (Kahn, 1990).

In turn, these domains create influence on how employees perceive and perform their roles at work.

Kahn defines meaningfulness as the positive “sense of return on investment of self in role of performance” (Kahn, 1990, p.705).

He describes psychological meaningfulness as a feeling the person experiences in return for the psychological, cognitive and emotional energy invested into task performance. The employees experience meaningfulness when they feel useful, valuable and not taken for granted, and that their work is important, desired and valued too. Work meaningfulness means that employees are more likely to dedicate their efforts to specific tasks, instead of withholding – this indicates the presence of engagement.

Furthermore safety was defined as the ability to show one’s self “without fear or negative consequences to self image, status or career” (Kahn, 1990, p705).

The predictable, consistent and clear situations at work make employees feel safer in their actions, which also increases the likelihood of engagement.

Maslach et al.’s burnout-antithesis approach

Kahn’s research was the only published literature on engagement until 2001, when Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) began their study on the job burnout concept. In their study they positioned employee engagement as the “positive antithesis” (Maslach et al. 2001) to burnout. Accordingly,

employee engagement was defined as “a persistent positive affective state of fulfillment in employees, characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption” (Schaufeli, et al., 2002, p.74).

Vigor refers to the employees’ willingness to invest their efforts into their job, the high levels of energy and their endurance and persistence in the face of difficulties.

Dedication refers to the employees’ strong involvement in their work, their feelings of enthusiasm and significance. Absorption happens when the employee is pleasantly occupied with work, this can be seen by the employee not keeping the track of time and their inability to separate themselves from the job at hand (Maslach et al. 2001).

Burnout or disengagement arises when there is an imbalance between the workers and the six work settings: workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values (Maslach et al. 2001).

According to Maslach et al. (2001), engagement is associated with the match between an employees’ profile and the job. This match can be characterized by a “sustainable workload, feelings of choice and control, appropriate recognition and reward, a supportive work community, fairness and justice, and meaningful and valued work” (Maslach et al. 2001, p. 417).

Taking a look at Kahn’s (1990) concept of engagement and Maslach et al.’s (2001) concept of burnout, it can be said that all of researchers presented a similar setting for that influences engagement or burnout. These include: the amount of physical, emotional and psychological recourses available to the employee and the skills they possess, feelings of choice and control, the need of recognition as a reward, supportive work interactions, and meaningful tasks and valued work (Maslach et al. 2001; Kahn, 1990).

However, contrary to Kahn who explains cognitive engagement processes, Maslach et al. lacks this explanation and instead presents engagement as the physical or emotional absence of burnout.

Kahn’s (1990) and Maslachs et al’s (2001) works are the first theoretical

frameworks, which help to understand employee engagement. Many of the contemporary researchers

Availability, the third domain, Kahn defined as the “sense of possessing the physical, emotional and psychological recourses” (Kahn, 1990) necessary to perform task in this very moment. It measures how ready the employee is, taking into consideration the distractions they experience.

The only study to date to empirically examine Kahn’s (1990) concept of engagement which was conducted by May et al. show that all three of Kahn’s (1990) psychological conditions were positively related to the development of engagement at work (May et.al. 2004).

They also found that meaningfulness was positively influenced by job enrichment and role fit; rewarding co-worker and supportive supervisor relations enhanced employees’ safety, while adherence to co-worker norms and self-consciousness had negative effect; and resource availability was a positive predictor of psychological availability, while outside life had a negative effect. Their findings also show that the framework developed by Kahn (1990) built a foundation for the future conceptualization of engagement (Shuck and Wollard, 2010).

Maslach et al.’s burnout-antithesis approach

Kahn’s research was the only published literature on engagement until 2001, when Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) began their study on the job burnout concept. In their study they positioned employee engagement as the “positive antithesis” (Maslach et al. 2001) to burnout. Accordingly, employee engagement was defined as “a persistent positive affective state of fulfillment in employees, characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption” (Schaufeli, et al., 2002, p.74).

Vigor refers to the employees’ willingness to invest their efforts into their job, the high levels of energy and their endurance and persistence in the face of difficulties.

Dedication refers to the employees’ strong involvement in their work, their

feelings of enthusiasm and significance. Absorption happens when the employee is pleasantly occupied with work, this can be seen by the employee not keeping the track of time and their inability to separate themselves from the job at hand (Maslach et al. 2001).

Burnout or disengagement arises when there is an imbalance between the workers and the six work settings: workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values (Maslach et al. 2001).

According to Maslach et al. (2001), engagement is associated with the match between an employees’ profile and the job. This match can be characterized by a “sustainable workload, feelings of choice and control, appropriate recognition and reward, a supportive work community, fairness and justice, and meaningful and valued work” (Maslach et al. 2001, p. 417).

Taking a look at Kahn’s (1990) concept of engagement and Maslach et al.’s (2001) concept of burnout, it can be said that all of researchers presented a similar setting for that influences engagement or burnout. These include: the amount of physical, emotional and psychological recourses available to the employee and the skills they possess, feelings of choice and control, the need of recognition as a reward, supportive work interactions, and meaningful tasks and valued work (Maslach et al. 2001; Kahn, 1990).

However, contrary to Kahn who explains cognitive engagement processes, Maslach et al. lacks this explanation and instead presents engagement as the physical or emotional absence of burnout.

Kahn’s (1990) and Maslachs et al’s (2001) works are the first theoretical frameworks, which help to understand employee engagement. Many of the contemporary researchers built their concepts of engagement from Kahn’s (1990) and Maslach et al’s (2001) works (Shuck (2010)).

Harter et al.’s satisfaction-engagement approach

In 2002, Harter et al. presented one of the most widely read and cited works on employee engagement, where they used 7939 business units (Harter et al., 2002) to examine the benefits of engagement. Employee engagement was defined here as an “individual’s involvement and satisfaction with as well as

enthusiasm for work” (Harter et al., 2002, p. 269).

In their meta-analysis, they agreed with Kahn’s concept (1990) and saw engagement occurring when the employees are emotionally and cognitively engaged and when they know what is expected of them. They also agreed that engagement was dependent on the employees having the tools necessary to do their tasks, feelings of fulfillment, perceiving themselves as being significant, working with others whom they trust and having the chance for improvement and development.

Using Kahn’s (1990) framework, Harter et al. developed a measure, consisting of 12 items, which assesses the employees’ perception of their company as a working place.

Results of the meta-analysis provided the evidence for the positive relationship between employee engagement and several important business outcomes: customer satisfaction-loyalty (r = 0.33), profitability (r = 0.17), productivity(r = 0.25), employee turnover (r = -0.30), and safety (r = -0.32).

Saks’s multidimensional approach

Another approach to employee engagement emerged from the multidimensional perspective of employee engagement presented by Saks (2006).

His theory was built on the belief that engagement is developed through a social exchange theory (SET).

Saks defined employee engagement as “a distinct and unique construct consisting of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components that are associated with individual role performance (p.602)”. This definition embraced previous literature on engagement, and introduced the suggestion that employee engagement was developed from cognitive (Kahn, 1990; Maslach et al., 2001), emotional (Harter et al., 2002; Kahn, 1990), and behavioral components (Harter et al., 2002; Maslach et al., 2001).

Following Kahn’s conceptualization of engagement (1990), this reflects the extent to which employees are psychologically present during particular organizational role performances. According to Saks (2006), the two main roles that most organizational members perform are their own work role and their role as a member of an organization. From this we can identify that Saks was the first one to present separate states of engagement: job engagement (psychological presence in one’s job) and organizational engagement (psychological presence in one’s organization) (Saks, 2006).

Saks’s model was build on the potential antecedents drawn from Kahn’s (1990) and

Maslach et al.’s (2001) model (Saks, 2006).

Saks’s findings indicate that even though the two measures of engagement are related, they are distinct, as participants showed significantly higher job engagement (M = 3.06), than organization engagement (M = 2.88).

The results of testing engagement antecedents showed that job characteristics (r = 37) and organizational support (r = 36) were significant predictors of job engagement. Procedural justice (r = 18) and organizational support (r = 57) were significant predictors of organization engagement (Saks, 2006).

Furthermore, it was shown that job and organization engagement are predictors of job satisfaction (r = 0.26, r = 0.41), organizational commitment (r = 0.17, r = 0.59), and intention to quit (r = 20.22, r = 20.31) and organizational citizenship behavior directed to the organization (r = 20, r = 30).

Whereas, only organization engagement predicts OCB directed to the individual (r = 0.20) (Saks, 2006).

Unique variances and the fact that only organization engagement predicts OCBI show that there is a difference between job and organizational engagement.

In general Saks (2006) research suggested that the engagement can be experienced emotionally and cognitively whilst being demonstrated behaviorally. Like Schaufeli, Salanova et al. (2002), Saks supported the viewed of engagement as an absorption of resources the employee has into the

work they performed. This view linked Schaufeli, Salanova et al. (2002), Kahn (1990) and Harter et al. (2002) models, as they all agree that for engagement or absorption to occur, employees need the physical, emotional and psychological resources to successfully perform their work; – without this, employees eventually disengage.

Aspects of Employee Engagement

Three basic aspects of employee engagement according to the global studies are:-

* The employees and their own unique psychological makeup and experience

* 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.

1.2 Importance of Employee 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.

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. This section will present the current thinking on the organizational and individual outcomes of employee engagement.

1.2.1 Organizational outcomes

Organizational Performance

Evidence from a number of studies supports the relation between employee engagement and organizational outcomes. Studies have shown that employee engagement have a positive influence on the following organizational performance indicators: customer satisfaction (Harter et al., 2002; Towers Perrin, 2003; Heintzman and Marson, 2005), productivity (Harter et al., 2002; Salanova et al, 2003; Schaufeli, et al., 2002), profit (Harter et al., 2002; Salanova et al., 2003; Schaufeli et al., 2002; Markos and Sridevi, 2010 ), employee turnover (Harter et al., 2002; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006) and safety (Harter et al., 2002).

One of the most important studies, which show the importance of engagement on business level was conducted by Harter, Schmidt and Hayes (2002).

They connected employee engagement with outcomes, which are directly relevant to most businesses: customer satisfaction, productivity, profit, employee turnover and safety at work.

Employee engagement had a positive influence on all of the mentioned categories, but mostly on customer satisfaction–loyalty (p=.33) employee turnover (p=.30) and safety (p=.32), followed by productivity (p=.25) and profitability (p=.17) (Harter et al., 2002).

One of the explanations of the lower magnitude of correlation between engagement and two last outcomes can be explained by the fact that these outcomes are more remote variables, which are also influenced by other variables and indirectly by employee attitudes (Harter et al., 2002).

Through their study, the researchers concluded that increasing employee engagement and building an environment that helps to foster employee engagement, can significantly increase the companies’ chances of success in their business.

Other researchers, such as Salanova et al. (2005), Bakker and Demerouti (2007), Hakanen et al. (2006) and Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006), also support Harter et al.’s(2002) findings and agree that employee engagement could be a predictor of organizational success, as it seems to have the potential to affect employee retention, employee loyalty and productivity, with some link to customer satisfaction, which results a company’s business outcomes.

But not everyone totally agrees with the idea that employee engagement boosts business results. For example, Balain and Sparrow (2009) suggest that the link between employee engagement and organizational performance is not so strong. Alternatively they suggest that there is a reverse connection between organizational performance and employees’ attitudes, so when the organizational performance indexes are high it evokes positive attitudes among workers.

Employee productivity

As Kahn (1990) states, engagement affects employee performance. Other researchers agree with this. In her research of six public organizations, Sonnentag (2003) found that a high level of engagement helps employees “in taking initiative and pursuing learning goals” (p.525).

Engaged employees develop new knowledge, respond to opportunities, go the extra mile (Lockwood, 2007; Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007) support the company, and engage themselves in mentoring and volunteering. In addition, engaged employees are more satisfied with their job and are more committed to the organization (Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007), they have the urge to meet challenging goals, and they have the urge to succeed. Engaged employees do not hold back, they not only have more energy, but they also enthusiastically apply their energy at work. In addition, engaged employees are intensively involved in their work and pay attention to the details (Bakker and Leiter, 2010).

Engaged employees go beyond the job description, they dynamically change and arrange their job in a way in which it fits the changing work environment (Bakker and Leiter, 2010).

Furthermore, the

positive attitude of engaged employees stimulates the integrative and creative perspective that adds value to service enterprise (Bakker and Leiter, 2010).

As researchers state, engaged employees see meaningfulness in their work, (Kahn, 1990; Maslach et al. 2001; Towers Perrin, 2003).

If employees see no meaningfulness in their job, they start to alienate and detach from their work, in other words they become less committed and motivated at work (Aktouf, 1992).

Furthernore, engagement in the meaningful job increases the perception of benefits from work (Britt et al., 2001)

Even though neither Khan (1990), nor May et al. (2004) included the outcomes of engagement in their study, later on Khan (1992) suggested that on the individual level, engagement influences the quality of an employees’ work and their own experience of doing their work etc. and on the organizational level, it influences the growth and productivity of the organization. Salanova, Agut and Peiro agree with this suggestion. In their study, they found the support of this suggestion, that those who are engaged perform better (Salanova et al., 2005).

The Institute for Employment Studies summarized the ways in which engaged employees behave (see Figure 1) (Robinson et al. 2004, p.6).

Figure 1. Characteristics of engaged employees

Employee retention

Besides the number of researches (e.i. Harter et al., 2002; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006), who have presented evidence that engagement has an influence on an employees’ intentions to quit, HR consultancy company Towers Perrin has also found that highly engaged employees are a more stable employees (2003, p.21).

The results of their survey showed that around 66% of highly engaged employees had no plans to leave their job versus 36% of moderately engaged and just 12% of the disengaged employees (see Figure 2) (Towers Perrin, 2003, p.21).

Figure 2. Relationship between engagement and intent to leave the company

According to Towers Perrin (2003) though high engagement does not guarantee retention (because a quarter of the employees would still consider the right opportunity), it does increase the chances that the possibly more attractive employees, in a competitive labor sense, will stay with the company. Advocacy of the organization

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (2006, as referenced in Scottish Executive, 2007), states that engaged employees may be advocates of their organization. Therefore this means that engaged employees are more predisposed to recommending their organization, as a place to work, or believing in and recommending the products and services of the organization. Another interesting result came out of the CIPD’s annual employee attitudes and engagement survey. Results show that employees working in the public sector are more critical to their organization than their private sector colleagues (CIPD 2006, as referenced in Scottish Executive, 2007).

The same survey also showed that 37% of employees are willing to do two things. Firstly, they are willing to promote the organization as an employer, which means that future recruitment costs could be reduced by recommending/introducing new personnel by existing employees. Secondly, they are willing to promote its products and services, which allows for free marketing and enhances the public awareness of the organization.

In addition to these findings, the ‘Meaning at work research report’ presented by Penna (2006) notes, that organizations might have a very disengaged group of employees, to whom they refer as to “corporate terrorist”. According to Penna (2006) this group of employees would actively discourage others from joining their current organization. In summary, these two surveys show that employees who are more engaged are more likely to bring an extra benefit for the company by advocating the organization, contrary to those who are disengaged and can even harm the company.

Customer loyalty

Although research on the consequences of work engagement has shown its relationship with positive outcomes such as low absenteeism and low turnover (Harter et al., 2002; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), and high organizational commitment and performance (Harter et al., 2002; Salanova, et al., 2003; Schaufeli, et al., 2002), little is known about the consequences of engagement of service workers.

Taking a closer look at the specifics of the administrative workers role, it can be said that the level of their service highly depends on the climate in the organization and on how the employees feel at work (Salanova et al., 2005).

How employees feel at work is important, because it influences the quality of their work and the satisfaction of their clients. This happens because the organization-customer relationship is managed through their employees. The way an organization treats their employees, and the way an employee feels during their role performance, is transmitted on their customers, as they meet face-to-face and work closely together and observe each other. During this interaction, clients receive both a personal and psychological experience with the company. Afterward the exchange is complete, the company is judged depending on the customers experience (Schneider and Bowen,1993).

The study by Salanova et al. (2005) showed that organizational resources and the level of engagement influences the service climate, which effects employee performance (appraised by the customer) and employee performance makes customers more satisfied and loyal. Therefore, engagement is the predictor of the service quality, and respectively the customer loyalty, in the organization.

Successful organizational change

Some authors suggest that employee engagement might play important role in the implementation of organizational change (Graen, 2008), because though doing nothing, actions taken by top management teams or external consultants brought mixed success. Graen (2008) suggests that engaged participants of

organizational change mayt be important in making organization able to change and adapt to changing environment.

1.2.2 Employee outcomes

Psychological outcomes

Cartwright and Holmes (2006) suggest that the changing workplace environment brings changes in the relationship between workers and their employers. When compared to a traditional workplace environment, two decades ago, now employee-employer relationships have become more transactional. Before employees offered their organization loyalty, commitment and trust, and in return expected job security, training and development, job advancement in their existing organization, but now this situation has changed. Cartwright and Holmes (2006) state that employers now offer higher salaries and instead of opportunities for skills development, which would lead to job advancement, the chance to become more entrepreneurial and manage their own career in exchange for employees’ efforts, and companies expect these efforts be higher than before. Authors suggest that such a change in the employee-employer relationship has frustrated many employees, as they have lost trust in the organization and they question the meaningfulness of their work. As a result, many employees are trying to find greater fulfillment from their work. Authors believe that engagement could help employees in this situation, providing them with the opportunity to invest themselves in work.

Other authors suggested self-efficacy as a possible outcome of engagement (Seijts and Crim, 2006).

They state that engaged employees believe they can make a difference in the organization, which is a powerful predictor of their behavior and performance.

Results of the Towers Perrin survey (2005, as cited in Seijts and Crim, 2006) support this idea:

* Eighty-four percent of highly engaged employees believe they can

positively impact the quality of their organization’s products, compared with only 31 percent of the disengaged. * Seventy-two percent of highly engaged employees believe they can positively affect customer service, versus 27 percent of the disengaged.

Health and well-being

Some research has presented an idea that engagement may result in a positive health effect and positive feeling towards the organization and work itself (Mauno et al., 2007).

Gallup organization (Crabtree, 2005, cited in Lockwood, 2007) reported increased health in engaged employees, with 62 per cent of engaged employees stating that work positively affects their physical health, compared with 54 per cent of disengaged employees reporting a negative effect of their work on their health, and 51 per cent reporting a negative effect on their generall well-being.

1.2.3 Why do engaged employees perform better

Bakker and Demerouti (2008) present four reasons why engaged employees perform better than their non-engaged counterparts.

Positive emotions

Some researchers describe engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind” (Schaufeli et al., 2002, p.74; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004, p.295).

With this state of mind, employees more often experience positive emotions, such as happiness, joy and enthusiasm. Happy people may be more open to opportunities at work, more helpful to others, exert more confidence and be generally more optimistic (Cropanzano and Wright, 2001, cited in Bakker and Demerouti, 2008).

According to the broaden-and-build theory, positive emotions, such as joy, interest and contentment, can help people “build their personal resources (ranging from physical and intellectual resources to social and psychological resources)” (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008, p.216).

For example, joy broadens resources “by creating the urge to play … and be creative” (p. 220) and interest, broadens resources by creating the desire to explore, to learn new information and experiences (Fredrickson, 2001).

Good health

Some researchers present an idea that engagement positively influences an employees’ health, which means that the health condition of engaged employees allows them to perform better than non-engaged employees. In a study conducted by Hakanen et al. (2006), they found evidence that work engagement is positively related to self-rated health and work ability. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) also found a positive connection between engagement and health. In their study among four different service organizations, they found that engaged workers suffer less from self-reported headaches, cardiovascular problems, and stomach aches. However, another research did not find the evidence of the connection between engagement and physiological indicators, one example of this can be seen through Langelaan et al. (2006) in regards to the stress hormone.

Ability to mobilize resources

Another reason why engaged employees are more productive, could be that engaged employees are also more successful in mobilizing their job resources, as they have a better working environment, and more pleasant colleagues to work with (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), and they are better at creating their own resources (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008).

The Broaden-and-build theory presented by Fredrickson (2001), claims that the momentary experience of positive emotions can build enduring psychological resources and, in addition, it can “trigger upward spirals toward enhanced emotional well-being” (Fredrickson, 2001, p. 22).

This means that positive emotions make people feel good in the present, but also through their influence on broadened thinking, positive emotions increase the possibility that people will feel good in the future (Fredrickson, 2001; Fredrickson and Joiner, 2002).

There is also evidence for an upward spiral of work engagement and resources presented by Xanthopoulou et al. (2007, as referenced in Bakker and Demerouti, 2008, ).

Researchers showed that job and personal resources resulted in a higher level of engagement one year later. At the same time, engagement results in an increase of personal resources (optimism, self-efficacy and organization-based self-esteem) and job resources (social support from colleagues, autonomy, coaching, and feedback) over time. Similar results were presented by Llorens et al. (2007).

They presented the “gain spiral” of resources, self-efficacy and engagement over time. The study by Schaufeli et al.’s (2009) also supports this idea. The results of this study showed that an initial high level of engagement predicted the increase of job resources the next year, this included: social support, autonomy, learning opportunities, and performance feedback.

So all these findings show that, compared with non-engaged employees, engaged employees are better able to mobilize both job and personal resources, which supports their future engagement.

Transfer of engagement

Organizational performance is the result of the combined efforts of the individual employees (Bakker and Demerouti, 2008).

Therefore, it is possible to assume that the transfer of engagement from one employee to another will increase company performance. Crossover can be defined as the transfer of positive or negative emotions and experiences from one person to another (Westman, 2001).

Some researchers found evidence of emotional transferability, the results of these research show that:

* A positive mood of the leader is transferred to the employees, resulting in less effort needed to complete the task and more coordination (Sy et.al, 2005)

* A team members’ positive mood spreads among other team members and

results in more cooperation and better task performance (Barsade, 2001)

A similar theory was put forward by Bakker et al. (2006, as referenced in Bakker and Demerouti, 2008), who found that team work engagement was related to individual team members’ engagement. Individual engaged workers spread their optimism, positive attitudes and pro-active behaviors between their co-workers, creating a positive team climate.

All these findings suggest that engaged employees have a positive influence on their colleagues and, as a consequence, their team performs better.

1.3 Antecedents of engagement

A lot of the literature on employee engagement comes from practitioner literature and consulting firm. There is a lack of research on employee engagement in the academic literature (Robinson et al., 2004).

Though, some of the studies in the academic literature contribute to the understanding of what drives employee engagement. This section will present the current thinking and evidence of the catalysts for employee engagement.

While reviewing the academic literature, there is a tendency towards many authors using antecedents and the driver of engagement interchangeably, however it is also possible to argue why these two notions should be used separately. For example, one can say that antecedents are more or less fixed characteristics of the people, organization or job, such as meaningfulness (Saks 2006, p.604), whereas drivers are more actions or activities, such as providing learning opportunities or social support (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007).

The main purpose for this section is to find out which constructs, strategies or conditions have a positive influence on employee engagement, regardless of whether it is fixed characteristics or actions.

The literature on the antecedents or drivers of employee engagement does not present a lot of empirical research (Saks, 2006), however some factors have found empirical support. For the purpose of this thesis,

organization-related antecedents and drivers of engagement have been combined into four groups, depending on their origin: the task level, the organization of work level, the interpersonal and social relations level, the level of organization, and the level of individual.

Task Level

In their research Saks (2006) and Ologbo and Saudah (2011) have differentiated job engagement from organization engagement and showed that there is a difference between these two types of engagement. For the purpose of this thesis, interest will be based in the general engagement of employees at work, both job and organizational engagement, this section presents the antecedents of both types of engagement.

As the foundation for the possible antecedents of engagement, Saks took Kahn’s (1990) and Maslach et al.’s (2001) models of engagement. Results of this study show that job characteristics are positively related to job engagement (Saks, 2006).

For example, challenging job, which allows employees to use different skills and gives an opportunity to contribute to the company’s success, brings employees psychological meaningfulness and a sense of return to their performance-investments (Kahn, 1990, 1992).

Kahn (1992) also states that employees who are involved in jobs, which are high on the core job characteristics, are more likely to be engaged.

According to Hackman and Oldham (1980), core job characteristics are skill variety, task identity, task significance, autonomy, and feedback. Kahn’s view has also been supported by other authors. In the study of job resources it was found that feedback and autonomy were positively associated with work engagement (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007), as they help in achieving work related goals and may stimulate personal development (Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007).

At the same time burnout literature sates that the lack of feedback and autonomy are consistently related to burnout (Maslach et al., 2001), and cause the range of withdrawal reactions (Demerouti et.al., 2001) as they restrain learning and the need for autonomy (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).

The relationship between job characteristics and employees’ engagement can also be explained from the social exchange theory’s point of view. According to this theory, the employee and employer are found in a reciprocal relationship and obligations are developed during their interactions (Saks, 2006).

Following this interpretation, when employees receive challenging jobs they feel obligated to show higher level of engagement.

Organization of work Level

Employee development opportunities were also found to have a positive influence on job engagement (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011).

This connection may be due to the reason that many employees desire to maintain their jobs inventive and interesting by acquiring new skills and applying new approaches to their daily tasks. This goes hand in hand with Kahn’s (1990) viewpoint that the ability to learn and to apply new knowledge increases meaningfulness for employee, which in turn positively influences engagement.

Interpersonal Level

Studies also show that social support from colleagues and supervisors are also positively associated with work engagement (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011, Hakanen et.al.2006, Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Schaufeli and Salanova, 2007).

Supportive colleagues and proper feedback from supervisors increases the likelihood of being successful in achieving work goals (Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).

Furthermore, social support satisfies employees’ need to belong (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004).

In summary, social support stimulates employee engagement either through satisfaction of basic needs or through the achievement of work goals. Job burnout literature has also extensively studied social support and has shown that there is a consistent and strong evidence that lack of social support is linked to burnout (Maslach et al, 2001).

Social support from the colleagues and supervisor may also be important from the point of view that both these constructs contribute to the general positive social climate in the organization. In the research conducted by Hakanen et al. (2006), it was shown that social climate predicts employee engagement.

Studies, that show the connection between social support and engagement, are in conflict with the study conducted by Saks (2006), who did not find a significant connection between perceived supervisor support and employee engagement. The difference of these results and the ones presented later may be due to the fact that studies were conducted between different employee groups, in different organizations, industries and countries. These factors may have influenced the difference in the results.

Organization Level

The organizational level antecedents of employee engagement also found its empirical support. The feeling of safety presented by Kahn (1990) is influenced by the predictability and consistency of the procedures used to assign rewards, resources etc. at work. Procedural justice, which is concerned with the employees’ perception of fairness of means, used to determine the amount and distribution of resources among employees (Greenberg, 1990), was proven to have a positive effect on job engagement (Saks, 2006).

It can be explained from the fairness point of view. If the employees perceive an organization to be just and fair, they will also feel it is fair for them to put in more to work by increasing their engagement (Saks, 2006).

Other antecedents of employee engagement on the organizational level are the rewards and recognition. Following Kahn’s theory (1990), the level of an employees’ engagement depends on the level of returns on their investments of self into work. The sense of return can come not only from meaningfulness but also from an external environment like rewards and recognition. Some literature suggests that many employees like to be distinctively rewarded and recognized for the outstanding work they do (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011).

This means that the amount of received rewards and recognition may stimulate the employees’ engagement. Maslash et al. (2001) also suggest that the lack of rewards and recognition can lead to burnout; from this we can say that a sufficient amount of rewards and recognition is important for engagement. Study by Koyuncu et al. (2006) support this idea and show that the level of rewards and recognition is an important part of work experience and a strong predictor of engagement. The study conducted by Ologbo and Saudah (2011) duplicates the result from Koyuncu et al. (2006) by showing that reward and recognition influences job engagement. However, these findings contradict the findings of another study (Saks, 2006), where no significant connection between rewards and recognition was found. Robinson (2007) agrees with Saks, and states that other factors besides rewards are usually more important for engagement.

Leadership also plays a role in the level of an employees’ engagement. Employees need to be confident is their organization; this confidence can be built through the reliability of the leadership (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011).

It can be seen in a couple of studies that a strong degree of trust and confidence in senior leaders increases the chances that the employee will repay with organizational engagement, as trust is an important factor in building relationships (Karsan, 2011; Ologbo and Saudah, 2011).

Many researchers have stated that employees need clarification and communication of a company’s goals and objectives and to have the feeling of being well informed about what is going on in the company (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011).

One of the publications showed that the availability of information was positively related to engagement, as the access to information increases the chances that the task at hand will be completed successfully and that work goals will be achieved (Hakanen et al., 2006).

The image of the organization was also found to be connected with organizational engagement. The more employees approve the company’s products and services, the higher the level of organizational engagement they show (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011).

Individual antecedents

Perceived organizational support (POS) was empirically proven to have a positive influence on job and organization engagement (Saks, 2006).

POS refers to the employees’ beliefs that an organization values their

contributions and cares about their well-being (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002).

The amount of support and care employees’ perceive to receive from organization influences their psychological safety, and enables them to employ their selves without fear of negative consequences (Kahn, 1990).

From Rhoades’ et al.’s (2001) point of view, the employee and the employer are in a dynamic relationship and employee monitors and responds to the organizations’ actions towards them (Rhoades’ et al.,2001).

POS makes employees feel obligated “to care about the organizations welfare and to help the organization reach its objectives” (Rhoades’ et al., 2001, p.834).

In other words, when an employee feels that the organization takes care of them, the employees are expected to want to pay back by becoming more engaged and helping organization. Recognizing the feeling of obligation does not always bring its positive effects – the organization needs to establish a context in which the obligation feels more like a favorable relationship with the organization (Rhoades’ et al.,2001),as this will support favorable treatment by both the employee and the company in the future.

An employees’ perception of the work environment as emotionally and physically safe, can also be seen as the antecedent to the development of employee engagement (May et.al., 2004; Kahn, 1990).

The study by Xanthopuolou et al. (2007) showed that there is also a connection between personal resources and an employees’ engagement. Employees’ self-efficacy, organizational-based self-esteem and optimism are those personal resources, which can influence employees’ engagement (Xanthopuolou et al., 2007).

This was supported by Luthans et al’s. study (2006), which showed that employees who believe that they can meet the demands in a broader context, satisfy their needs by participating in roles within the organization and believe that they will experience good outcomes (Xanthopuolou et al., 2007) feel more prepared for varying work situations and that they are more able to control their working environment (Luthans et al’s.,2006).

These feelings may result in an employee being more confident and proud of their work, seeing their work as meaningful and as a result being more engaged (Hackman and Oldham, 1980).

Engaged workers posses personal resources (Xanthopuolou et al., 2007) such as self-efficacy, self-esteem and optimism, which help to control and influence their working environment (Luthans et al’s., 2006).

As Kahn (1990) stated, at work employees employ themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally, therefore they use their inner resources. From this, one can assume that the level of the employees’ inner resources has an influence on the level of engagement they show at work. Sonnentag (2003) agrees with this viewpoint and states that the level of recovery of personal resources has an impact on the employees experience at work. He claims that being able to recover in the evening after a working day, or during weekends, is important for restoring an employees’ physical, emotional and psychological resources necessary for engaging at work (Kahn, 1990).

During his study Sonnentag found that the employees who get a sufficient recovery during leisure time show higher level of engagement the next day (Sonnentag, 2003).

Moreover, work engagement was found to be the mediator of the effect of recovery on the proactive behaviors the next day. In other words, recovered employees were more engaged and showed more personal initiatives.

In conclusion for this section, it can be said that engagement, which has a positive effect on the employees’ behavior and attitude, can be derived from a strong mutual relationship between the co-employees, their employer and the organization as a whole.

It is also important to remember that employees’ resources, and their recovery, play an important role in the employees’ ability to engage. However, it is important to note that, as Robinson (2007) pointed out, it is unlikely that a “one-size fits all” approach will bring its benefits, as engagement and its drivers depend on the organization, employee group, the individual and job itself.

1.4 Implication for organization

1.4.1 Organizational support of employee engagement

To build employee engagement employers can use different practices. Authors state that actions should be taken on two levels – individual employee and at the larger organizational level (Attridge et.al., 2009, as referenced at Attridge 2009).

A good point to start at is the individual level, which according to Attridge (2009) is to change the way of giving feedback to employees regarding their job performance. It is understandable that there is a limit to the number of points a manager can address during the performance review, so it is important that they decide how to best allocate their time during the feedback process. Some managers decide to concentrate more on the employees’ performance or personality strengths while others may pay more attention to performance or personality weaknesses (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002).

Some studies have found evidence that job related feedback concentrating on an employees’ strengths, not weaknesses, increases their engagement level. Some researchers investigated engaged and disengaged employees regarding this statement. The work by Coley Smith (2006, as referenced at Attridge 2009) presents that 77% of engaged employees state that their supervisor focuses on positive characteristics while giving feedback, compared to 23% of moderately engaged and only 4% of disengaged employees, who agree with this statement. The survey conducted by The Corporate Leadership Council (2002), which analyzed 19000 employees and managers in 34 organizations, also presents some interesting findings (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Impact of formal performance review on employee performance

As shown in the figure, the choice of emphasizing the positive or negative features in performance reviews has a substantial impact on employee performance. More precisely, the far left-hand side of the figure shows that an emphasis on performance strengths in formal reviews can increase performance by 36.4 percent. The second bar emphasizes on personality strengths, which also have a positive (21.3 percent) impact on individual performance. The authors of the study state that those employees who receive feedback, with emphasis on performance strengths, also feel better matched with their job and believe they have the necessary resources to do their job (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002).

At the same time, the right-hand side of the figure demonstrates that an emphasis on performance weaknesses can lower employee performance on 26.8 percent, and these employees are more likely to feel they are not in the right job (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002).

The message from these studies is a note of caution – organizations should understand that the way in which they conduct formal reviews with employees is critical. Giving negative feedback, without suggestions for improving performance, can undermine the goal of the formal review. Though emphasizing performance strengths during the formal reviews and providing employees with suggestions for how they can better perform on the job, can increase performance and make employees feel more comfortable with their work (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002).

Besides training managers to focus on the strength of the employees during performance feedback, it makes more sense for the organization to prevent the situation of the disengagement at the first place (Corporate Leadership Council, 2002).

Authors suggest many practices that can help to advance an organization’s health in this way (Nelson et.al., 2007).

On the organizational level, effective practices to prevent disengagement include a better job design, resource support, working conditions, corporate culture and effective leadership style.

Job design was defined as “…specification of the contents, methods, and relationships of jobs in order to satisfy technological and organizational requirements as well as the social and personal requirements of the job holder” (Buchanan, 1979, p.55)

Researchers state that employee engagement can be improved with the help of a better job design, as specific elements and the job tasks can be designed in a way to benefit from the employees strengths and, at the same time, employees can be placed into the jobs, which are better matched to their abilities and knowledge (Barling et.al., 2005, as referenced in Attridge, 2009).

Researches also associate a low level of engagement with a low level of social support from supervisors and colleagues (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007; Hakanen et.al., 2006).

Meta-analysis of 73 prior research studies conducted by Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), shows that a higher level of POS can decrease ‘strains’ symptoms, such as feeling fatigued, burnout, anxious and having headaches, amongst employees. POS is expected to reduce these negative reactions to stressors by signaling the availability of material as well as emotional support when employees face high demands at work (George et.al. 1993).

One of the studies found that, when job demands are high, employee engagement can be improved if the organization provides employees with more support and job resources, such as supervisor support, innovative problem solving, positive appreciation and collaborative organizational culture (Bakker et al. 2007).

They also provide the reasons, why these factors can act as a buffer for the increased strain. For example, supervisor support may reduce the negative influence of job demands on strain, because supervisor’s support and appreciation puts demands into different perspective. Positive appreciation helps to maintain an employees’ motivation and shows that employees should continues in a certain direction (Bakker et al. 2007).

Organizational culture and innovativeness also may be highly important to maintaining engagement between employees, as this maintains their work as both interesting and challenging. Therefore, providing employees with the right job resources can protect them from negative consequences, depending on the kind of work, and support the employee engagement.

Furthermore, to create the appropriate environment for future engagement, organizations should avoid or reduce the main predictors of an employees’ exhaustion and/or burnout, such as difficult job demands and stressful working conditions (Xanthopoulou et.al. 2007).

Practices can include removing problematic or unfavorable aspects of the tasks and technical operations, providing more user-friendly workplace equipment, introducing more role clarity and decision making authority of workers, and creating and supporting opportunities for positive social interactions at work (Warr, 2005, as referenced in Attridge, 2009).

Even Gallup Q12 method of assessment

of work engagement includes the question of having a best friend at work (Gallup, 2010)

It is also important to change the culture of an organization in order to reduce or avoid organizational factors that lead to employees being stressed at work, absenteeism and disengagement (Attridge, 2009).

Lockwood’s view backs this viewpoint and states that “workplace culture sets the tone for engagement” (2007, p.4).

The winner of the Healthy Workplace is determined by the American Psychological Association and is judged according to five criteria that contribute to a healthy workplace culture: work-life balance, employee growth and development, health and safety, recognition and employee involvement (Grawitch et.al., 2006).

Other researchers refined and expanded these practices to the following five categories (Grawitch et.al., 2006):

1. Supporting work-life balance. Work-life balance programs recognize that workers have responsibilities outside work and include not only practices and policies regarding elderly and child care but also other responsibilities in employees’ private lives that require flexibility. Examples of work-life balance programs include flexible scheduling, childcare, eldercare, and provision of job security.

2. Promoting employee growth and development. With employee growth and development programs, organizations invest in the employees’ skills potential, which makes them more committed to the organization and increases the chances for internal career development. Employee growth and development programs examples include additional on-the-job training, leadership development and provision of internal career opportunities.

3. Encouraging employee health and safety at the workplace. Health and safety programs are designed to maximize employees’ physical and mental health. Such programs might include employee assistance programs for alcohol and drug addiction, wellness screenings, stress management training, counseling and safety training.

4. Praise and recognition. Recognition programs, which make employees feel

rewarded for their contribution to the organization, are usually perceived as monetary rewards (bonuses or raises, but they can also include other types of rewards such as honorary ceremonies, personal acknowledgment in companies’ newsletters etc.

5. Employee involvement. The goal of employee involvement, which is perhaps the most popular of all healthy work place practices, according to the authors, is to allow employees to bring diverse ideas to solving organizational problems and increasing organizational effectiveness. Employee involvement can be increased with greater employee participation in decision making, empowerment, self-managed teams and job autonomy.

Other researchers suggest engagement practices, which can be taken on the managerial level, that facilitate community-building efforts in organization (Gravenkemper, 2007):

1. Communicating a compelling message. To successfully engage people, the company needs to capture their hearts and minds.

2. Building a guiding coalition. To build a community, it is necessary to create a core leadership team that supports common goals.

3. Creating principle-based versus compliance-based guidelines for decisions and behaviors. Principle-based guidelines are preferred for promoting engagement and commitment, because it requires an individual interpretation of messages and gives the opportunity to personalize meaning. Whereas, compliance-based guidelines states that not demonstrating the desired behavior will result in negative consequences. (Examples of principle-based guidelines: Treat others the way that you would like to be treated. Be all that you can be. Examples of compliance-based guidelines include: Don’t walk on the grass. You will be docked an hour’s pay if you are late for work.)

4. Identifying early engagement indicators.Early indicators signal that community-building efforts are acceleration, and it points out the

successful initiatives to which extra resources can be allocated. One of the indicators might be the “buzz level” in the group.

5. Generating continuous opportunities for dialogue. Making people communicate, rather than just listen, creates buy-in. Communication between leaders increases their commitment and tends to strengthen the ties within the leadership group.

6. Planning assimilation strategies for new members and new leaders. Successful assimilation of new members into the community and managing their transition to leadership roles are two key points of increasing engagement and commitment.

Leadership style and support also contributes to employee engagement (Ologbo and Saudah, 2011; Bakker and Demerouti, 2007).

As supervisors carry an extra role as being organizational agents, the employees’perception of their favorable or unfavorable treatment may contribute to POS (Eisenberger et. al., 1986), which also has influence on engagement (Saks, 2006).

According to occupational health psychology research (Barling 2007, as referenced in Attridge, 2009), the most effective leadership style for supporting engagement is “transformational leadership”. This leadership style was defined as “leadership behavior that transforms the norms and values of the employees, whereby the leader motivates the workers to perform beyond their own expectations” (Yukl, 1989, as referenced in Tims et. al. 2011, p.122).

Traditionally, transformational leaders communicate the vision of the future, inspire and motivate employees, are a role model for subordinates, show real interest in the employees’ needs and intellectually stimulate workers (Tims et. al. 2011).

Inspirational motivation, performed by the leader, inspires employees to be more engaged and task-committed trough sharing the vision, encouraging higher performance expectations and appealing to workers emotions (Hickman, 2010; Kelly, 2010 as referenced in Song et.al., 2012).Other important attributes of the transformational leader are authenticity and emotional competence with others (Quick et. al., 2007).

The authentic leaders are transparent to others, create positive psychological environment and are known for having personal integrity. Emotionally competent leaders are aware of their own feelings and emotions as well as other people feelings and emotions and know how to act in accordance with these emotions. As a result, employees often develop a deeper trust in management and the employees’ sense of self-efficacy improves; these two are the factors which are associated with well-being and productivity (Attridge, 2009).

Some researchers found that transformational leaders are able to enhance employees’ feeling of involvement, commitment, potential and performance (Shamir et. al., 1993).

Workers might see their work as more challenging, involving and satisfying, when they receive sufficient support, inspiration and coaching from supervisor, which gradually makes them highly engaged (Tims et. al. 2011).

1.4.2 HR support of employee engagement

In order to get competitive advantages, organizations are referring to HR departments to set the agenda to creating the culture of engagement at work (Lockwood, 2007).

The HR departments deal with personnel and their relations. Its responsibilities often involve standard administrative tasks and assisting other managers by dealing with employees starting from the selection process to the end of their contract. The HR department is in charge of staffing, selection, orientation, training and development, performance appraisal and safety issues. As the HR department works so closely with employees and their issues, it is clear that for employee engagement to take place, HR activities can help other managerial practices when dealing with employees.

Strategic function. Strategic HR helps to integrate HR policies and practices with the organization’s strategic plans (Porter, 2008), giving the possibility to make the employees’ work more meaningful and related to the strategic direction of the organization. Research shows that the employees’ understanding of how their job is connected to the company’s strategy, and

how their job contributes to the company’s success, is one of the most important drivers of employee engagement (Lockwood, 2007).

Recruitment and selection. The recruitment process tries to ensure that the company has the right people placed in the right jobs. This is important for further employee engagement, because if employees are in tune with their jobs then they are psychologically and emotionally present during their task performance, they do not block or withdraw from the job, and do not perform it mechanically (Khan, 1990).

Training and development. Learning, training and development can have two meanings for the employees. It can be perceived as an intrinsic motivator, as they support employees’ growth, learning and development. It can also be an extrinsic motivator, because they give employees more tools they can use during their work for achieving their goals (Bakker and Leiter, 2010).

Moreover, in the survey conducted by Paradise (2008), employees ranked quality of workplace learning opportunities as the first factor influencing their engagement.

Performance management. In their book Mone and London (2010) recommends managers to pay more attention to performance management in order to create a more engaged workforce. Performance management includes the following activities, which are found to be essential for employee engagement (Mone and London, 2010):

1. Building trust. Authors state that one of the key predictors of employee engagement is their ability to trust their manager.

2. Setting meaningful goals. Research shows that a manager who spends time on setting goals and plans with the employee makes them more able to engage, because setting goals effectively empowers employees to act.

3. Communication about performance. Feedback is communication in the company that helps an employees understand how their job contributes to the success of the team and organization. Employees receiving ongoing feedback,

specially positive, on their performance are more engaged, because they also see it as recognition and encouragement, which contributes to engagement.

4. Recognition. A simple “thank you”, not mentioning other formal ways (e.g. new, exciting project, invitation to a senior meeting, awards, etc) gives employees a sense of being valued and important.

5. Team learning and development. Employees have a chance to learn and develop skills, which give them more tools to achieve their job goals, and, according to Khan (1990), having necessary tools at work makes employees more able to engage.

Compensation and Benefits. Thought compensation and benefits are not perceived to be the most important, however they still play an important role in employees’ perception of the job (Robinson, 2007).

Having a market-related compensation and benefit package, combined with the feeling of being reasonably rewarded (Koyuncu et al., 2006), fairly treated and appreciated, makes employees more willing to engage (Maslach et al. 2001; Kahn, 1990).

The reward is not just a pay, it can be a combination of pay, bonuses, financial and nonfinancial rewards such as extra free days, child care etc.

Chapter 2. Company Profile

2.1 History

Talwalkars Better Value Fitness Limited, commonly known as Talwalkars, is one of India’s largest chain of health centres. It has over 130 ultramodern branches across 70 cities in countries with 1,25,000 members.

Talwalkars growth can be attributed directly to the trust customers have in us, and the benefits they derive from expert advice, personalized supervision, result-oriented approach, and Talwalkars know-how and experience in this field since the first gym being set up in Mumbai in 1932 and now offering a diverse set of services including gyms, spas, aerobics

and health counselling.

Talwalkars not only offers you the latest technology in fitness but also the fabulous services, expertise and flexibility of Talwalkars which made us brand name in the fitness industry.

2.2 Mission

Spreading Fitness across the globe.

2.3Products and services

2.3.1 Corporate Membership

Stress is the key factor for almost every kind of illness in our corporate society today when taking a vacation with the family only means keeping in touch with your office virtually and staying connected 24×7 with never ending deadlines. No surprise then that pressure keeps mounting both for the employer and the employee.

We understand you and your hectic work schedules which is why Talwalkars offers a range of customized employee fitness/wellness solutions for corporate conglomerates:

* Gym membership.

* Corporate wellness programme

* Weight loss programme

* Zumba fitness programme

* In-office NuForm workout

* Gym set-up consulting services

* Facility management

Why Talwalkars Employee Wellness Programmes?

Our corporate wellness programmes help increase the confidence of employees

by promoting mental and physical health that leads to improved performance not just on the job but also in daily life. Our programmes are generally built towards teams strengthening team spirit and improving the employer-employee loyalty-relationship. All this and much more invariably keeps the overall organisation’s spirit high.

The Talwalkars Corporate Wellness Programme and proper nutrition knowledge can help your organization nurture its biggest asset – its human capital!

2.3.2 Talwalkars – Healthy India Fit India

It is the product of Shri. Madhukar Talwalkar’s vision “to create a health movement where every individual joins irrespective of age, sex, income or geographic location.” It is not just a smaller format gym! It is a re -engineered product designed to deliver superior value across the board. The business has been designed thoroughly to give 100% success to every franchisee partner who puts his/her trust and faith in the Hi-Fi team led by Shri. Madhukar Talwalkar. The team includes management professionals, architects, design consultants, equipment manufacturers, contractors, material suppliers, etc.

The Opportunity – The Indian Fitness Industry:

| 60% population under 30 years|

| 70% consumption from Tier II & III cities|

| The industry is valued at 800 crores (As per 2010 report in Economic Times) and growing at a rate of 12% CAGR|

2.3.3 Talwalkar Reduce

REDUCE is diet based weight loss program which fits into your daily routine comfortably, without any special workout schedules. It helps in effectively losing weight and in effective weight management.

REDUCE can be performed anytime, anywhere – home or office. The low calorie, high fibre foods and nutritionally balanced natural food products which are tasty and convenient; without any hassles of cooking ensures that there is

no unwanted starvation, restriction or untimely cravings and leads to pure loss of fat and not water or muscle mass. Losing weight and maintaining target weight is made easy with the timely and the regular checks and monitoring from your dieticians. But at the same time, REDUCE doesn’t require daily visits to the health center. Thus it cuts out travel time and does not interfere with your busy schedules.

REDUCE is a completely revamped weight loss program that’s easy, sensible, healthy and is the pride of our food technologists! REDUCE is one of the best technique ever developed to achieve weight loss for people reluctant or unable to exercise regularly; especially those with hectic work schedules.

The process

* The need for weight loss is analysed – how many kilos to drop * Individual lifestyle is taken cognizance of

* Factors contributing to weight gain are understood

* Any hurdles and difficulties during the day are noted – skipping meals, long gaps between meals, eating out, socializing, etc. * A meal plan is prepared which fits perfectly in the member’s routine lifestyle without any hassle – no starving, food restrictions, hunger pangs or special cooking * Tele-counseling and alternate day visits

* Weight check twice a week

2.3.4 GIFT VOUCHERS

* Talwalkars Gift vouchers are an ideal gift of health come in denominations of ₹500, ₹1000, ₹2000, ₹5000 * These vouchers can be redeemed at any Talwalkars gym in the country. 2.3.5 NUFORM

* NuForm – the revolutionary fitness regime, right to your doorstep. * It is a 20-minute workout equivalent to 5 days of regular gym. 2.3.6 ZUMBA

* Zumba is fun because you’re not really exercising, you’re dancing! * Healthy/fit employees are happier with lower stress levels * Exhilarating Dance – Party Workout

* Weekly sessions at your premises.

Chapter 3. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF PROJECT WORK

3.1 Purpose of the Project

It is essential to keep a highly motivated workforce throughout the organization’s operations. With the wide variety and scope of work in its plate it and the growing number of assignments and workforce, the HR department sought to recognize ways of keeping its employees going throughout.

The purpose of this study is to understand the problem areas and propose an implementable model for improving the employee engagement.

The goal of this employee satisfaction survey is to identify possible disconnect of the activities presently followed under the broad umbrella of the employee engagement, and subsequently address the gap.

This study has 9 hypothesis to establish the effectiveness of various activities conducted for employee engagement. The data required to assess this hypothesis are collected through various 16 questions related to specific expected purpose and their individual defining variables e.g. designation, education, working period and dept.

3.1.1 Hypothesis (H0)

H01 Employee engagement is significantly related to Designation of employee. H02 Employee engagement is significantly related to Education of employee. H03 Employee engagement is significantly related to Department of employee. H04 Employee engagement is significantly related to Working period of employee. H05 Employee engagement activities are effective in various formats of rewards to retain the employees.(Q.11,Q12,Q13,Q15,Q16) H06 Employee engagement activities are effective through social need satisfaction to retain employees. (Q9,Q10) H07 Employee engagement

activities are effective through social /esteem need satisfaction to retain employees. (Q5,Q6,Q7,Q8) H08 Employee engagement activities are effective through are effective security needs satisfaction to retain employees.(Q2 & Q3) H09 engagement activities are effective by providing Fitness related benefits to retain employees.(Q.14)

3.2 OBJECTIVES

3.2.1 Primary Objective

* To analyse the impact of Employee Engagement Activities on employees through fitness benefits in sectors of Construction, IT, Banking and insurance and Pharmaceutical.

3.2.2 Secondary Objectives

* To measure the level of employee engagement in the organisation.

* To identify the various factors influencing employee engagement.

* To compare the employer satisfaction & performances with the engagement of the employee.

* To study the existing practices for improving employee engagement.

3.2.3 Assumption

The employee engagement initiatives identified and implemented could help the organization three fold aspects of controlling Attrition and increasing Productivity and Profitability.

3.2.4 Limitation

There is no clear cut formula for increasing employee engagement, it itself being an ambiguous feature. The number of engagement initiatives that could

be introduced is limitless. And establishing a direct correlation of the organization growth in terms of low attrition and high productivity and profitability is tough and highly subjective.

Chapter 4. LITERATURE REVIEW

4.1 Binder C. (1998), States that, “Most people work just hard enough not to get fired and get paid just enough not to quit.” It’s a humorous line, but I wonder how many managers and leaders would wince a bit when they hear it. If they are truly concerned about workplace performance, they should. Granted, the system described by Carlin is stable and probably productive enough (just enough, in fact).

But managers and leaders with an interest in performance would certainly want more. One way to get more is through employee engagement. Employee engagement is a relatively recent concept that is garnering a lot of interest in the performance improvement community. The promises of employee engagement are many: higher productivity, more job satisfaction, and increased profits, to name but a few. But is there really something to this idea of employee engagement, or is it the latest fad, with little to no substance behind it? In this column, I’ll take a quick look at the academic literature on employee engagement and summarize what we know (or, to put it in a more academic way, what we have evidence for).

4.2 Kahn W. A. (1990), the concept of employee engagement began with As often happens when a new concept is formulated, Kahn himself did not use the term employee engagement in his 1990 article. He wrote of “personal engagement” and “personal disengagement.” The former he defined as “the harnessing of organization members’ selves to their work roles” (p. 694); the latter, as “the uncoupling of selves from work roles” (p. 694).

Clearly, Kahn was talking about a form of workplace identity. To the extent that people identify with the work that they do, they will be engaged.

To the extent that they don’t, they will disengage. Kahn further defined three psychological conditions associated with engagement: meaningfulness, or the extent to which people feel that what they’re doing is worthwhile and valuable; safety, or the extent to which people feel comfortable being who they are at work; and availability, or the extent to which physical and psychological resources are accessible while engaging in work. Further work has largely substantiated Kahn’s original formulation, though terminology sometimes differs and alternative models do exist. But does employee engagement really result in any concrete benefits? It is true that employee engagement has been studied more as a theoretical construct than a tactical intervention. More researchers have looked at the antecedents of employee engagement than the consequences. Still, there does seem to be good evidence that robust employee engagement results in several positive outcomes. Chang-Wook Jeung (2011) reported several studies that collectively found a long list of such benefits, including worker satisfaction, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, productivity, and profitability.

4.3 Markos, S. & Sridevi, M. S. (2010), Begun their concept with question i.e. so how do you get employee engagement? The gold standard for demonstrating causality is the experimental design. Sadly, there do not appear to be any experimental designs testing employee engagement reported in the research literature. That is to say (to my knowledge), no one has measured employee engagement, done an intervention, and measured again and found it to be higher. Still, the reported literature is suggestive. Solomon Markos and M. Sandhya Sridevi (2010) offered 10 employee engagement strategies. These include advice such as, “Start it on day one” (of a new hire’s career), “Give satisfactory opportunities for development and advancement,” and “Ensure that employees have everything they need to do their jobs” (sic).

Kahn’s original formulation around workplace identity is itself a good guide. It suggests that Carl Binder’s (1998) Selection and Assignment box is relevant here, as you need to pick the people who enjoy what you’ll be asking them to do, and make sure they understand and are rewarded for the value they add to the organization by doing it. Employee engagement is no panacea, but the academic literature does suggest that it is a strong concept with positive real-world consequences. Managers and leaders interested in improving performance would be well-served by taking an interest in employee engagement and doing what they can to enhance it in their organizations; and, all joking aside, that will leave a smile on everyone’s face.

4.4 Demerouti, Evangelia; Mostert, Karina; Bakker, Arnold B (2010), This study among 528 South African employees working in the construction industry examined the dimensionality of burnout and work engagement, using the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey, the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. On the basis of the literature, we predicted that cynicism and dedication are opposite ends of one underlying attitude dimension (called “identification”), and that exhaustion and vigor are opposite ends of one “energy” dimension. Confirmatory factor analyses showed that while the attitude constructs represent opposite ends of one continuum, the energy constructs do not—although they are highly correlated. These findings are also supported by the pattern of relationships between burnout and work engagement on the one hand, and predictors (i.e., work pressure, autonomy) and outcomes (i.e., organizational commitment, mental health) on the other hand. Implications for the measurement and conceptualization of burnout and work engagement are discussed.

4.5 Hallberg, Ulrika E.; Schaufeli, Wilmar B. (2006), The present study investigates whether work engagement (measured by the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale; UWES) could be empirically separated from job involvement and organizational commitment. In addition, psychometric properties of the Swedish UWES were investigated. Discriminant validity of the UWES was tested through inspection of latent intercorrelations between the constructs, confirmatory factor analyses, and patterns of correlations with other constructs (health complaints, job and personal factors, and turnover intention) in a sample of Information Communication Technology consultants (N = 186).

Conclusion: Work engagement, job involvement, and organizational commitment are empirically distinct constructs and, thus, reflect different aspects of work attachment. The internal consistency of the Swedish UWES was satisfactory, but the dimensionality was somewhat unclear. 4.6 Evelina Rog (2008) , Purpose – The purpose of this article is to clarify what is meant by talent management and why it is important (particularly with respect to its affect on employee recruitment, retention and engagement), as well as to identify factors that are critical to its effectiveimplementation.

Design/methodology/approach – This article is based on a review of the

academic and popular talent

Findings – Talent management is an espoused and enacted commitment to implementing an integrated, strategic and technology enabled approach to human resource management (HRM).

This commitment stems in part from the widely shared belief that human resources are the organization’s primary source of competitive advantage; an essential asset that is becoming in increasingly short supply. The benefits of an effectively implemented talent management strategy include improved employee recruitment and retention rates, and enhanced employee engagement. These outcomes in turn have been associated with improved operational and financial performance. The external and internal drivers and restraints for talent management are many. Of particular importance is senior management understanding and commitment.

Practical implications – Hospitality organizations interested in implementing a talent management strategy would be well advised to: define what is meant by talent management; ensure CEO commitment; align talent management with the strategic goals of the organization; establish talent assessment, data management and analysis systems; ensure clear line management accountability; and conduct an audit of all HRM practices in relation to evidence-based.

Originality/value – This article will be of value to anyone seeking to better understand talent management or to improve employee recruitment, retention and engagement.

4.7 Alaa Nimer AbuKhalifeh, Ahmad Puad Mat Som (2013), sates that, Employee engagement becomes an important issue as employee turnover rises due to the demand and shortage of skilful employees. Though organizational performances of many organizations have deteriorated due to high turnover rates and related issues such as high absenteeism, low loyalty and productivity, there is still a lack of academic research that addresses the antecedents required for high employee engagement in the food and beverage departments in the service industry. This paper focuses on the antecedents that influence employee engagement in food and beverage service departments, and literature

reviewed indicates that there is a significant relationship between employee communication, employee development, rewards and recognition, and extended employee care. Among the antecedents, employee development forms the most significant contributor.

Chapter 5. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research methodology is a way to systematically solve the research problem. It may be understood as a science of studying how research is done scientifically. In it we study the various steps that are generally adopted by a researcher in studying his research problem along with the logic behind them.

5.1 Scope of study

The project involved designing an employee engagement framework. The parameters were zeroed on after the market survey and the internal employee voices. Once engagement data was gathered, the next logical step was to examine the relationship between the engagement measures and business results. The scope of the project included identifying weather employee engagement can include fitness benefit to retain employee for the employee engagement initiatives for the establishment.

| | | | | | |

•Secondary| | Benchmarking| | | •ESS Feedback| | | | | | | | |

Research| •In Person| | | categorization| |

•Primary| | | | | |

| | Interviews| | | | |

Research| | | | | | |

| •Telephonic| | | | |

| | | | | |

Parameters| | Interviews| | | Internal| |

| | | | | | |

| | | | | | Analysis| |

5.2 Research design

A research design is the assignment of conditions for collection and analysis of data in a manner that aims to combine relevance to the search purpose formidable problem that follow the fact defining the research.

In this study, descriptive research design is been used to determine some definitive purpose with the help of structured questionnaire to study the primary information and to focus on the accurate description of the variable present in the problem.

5.3 Sampling

Sampling is concerned with the selection of a subset of individuals from within a population to estimate characteristics of the whole population.

5.4 Sample size

The total sample size was 50 employees. The samples were selected using simple random sampling techniques i.e. every individual in the total population had equal chances of being selected.

5.5 Type of Sample

A simple random sample is a subset of individuals (a sample) chosen from a larger set (a population).

Each individual is chosen randomly and entirely by chance, such that each individual has the same probability of being chosen at any stage during the sampling process, and each subset of k individuals has the same probability of being chosen for the sample as any other subset of k individuals. This process and technique is known as simple random sampling.

In our study the total sample size (employees who participated in employee engagement programs) is 50. Every employee of the population had equal chances of being the part of the survey.

As major advantage of simple random sampling is every sample has equal chance of getting selected that’s the biggest reason which makes me feel to work with simple random sampling.

Chapter 6. DATA COLLECTION

Data refers to information or facts however it also includes descriptive facts, non numerical information, qualitative and quantitative information Data could be broadly classified as:-

6.1 Primary data

Primary data is the data collected for the first time through field survey. It is collected with a set of objectives to assess the current status of any variable studied. Primary data reveals the cross-section picture of the object under scrutiny. Therefore primary data are those collected by the investigator (or researcher) himself for the first time and thus they are original in character.

The primary data for the study was collected through structured questionnaires with total respondents of 50 employees from all departments.

6.2 Secondary data

Secondary data refers to the information or facts already collected. It is collected with objective of understanding the part status of any variable or the data collected and reported by some source is accessed and used for the objective of a study. Normally in research, the scholars collect published data analyze it in order to explain the relationship between variables.

The secondary data for the study was collected through HR manual and journals of library in order to understand more precisely the employee engagement activities to be done in company.

Chapter 7. DATA ANAYSIS

Analysis is the one of the important stage of a project. In this stage the recorded responses are analyzed with the help of SPSS as analyzing tool. The responses in the questionnaire have its own value in making a true interpretation. There are 50 respondents for the study. The questions are created in a way that the ambiguity is avoided. After preliminary scrutiny of the filled questionnaires, it is noticed that all the respondents marked their responses which will lead the study. The responses of the questionnaires are tabulated and codified in SPSS to find out that the hypothesis which I have made are co-related to each other or not and to find out employee engagement in which sector is on high peak. Diagrammatic representations are given for each hypothesis in order to make the findings more clear to the reader. Along with simple bar diagrams are also used to make the presentation more attractive. The data are been analysed on two parts:

* On the basis of hypothesis made by me.

* On the basis of various factors like sectors which shows the impact of these factors on the study.

7.1 Hypothesis

H01 Employee engagement is significantly related to Department of employee.

Correlations

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Descriptive Statistics|

| Mean| Std. Deviation| N|

Department| 2.66| 1.303| 50|

Continuing_With_job| 3.34| 1.272| 50|

Correlations|

| | Department| Continuing_With_job|

Department| Pearson Correlation| 1| .453|

| Sig. (2-tailed)| | .000|

| N| 50| 50|

Continuing_With_job| Pearson Correlation| -.003| 1|

| Sig. (2-tailed)| .985| |

| N| 50| 50|

Analysis

The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between employee engagement is significantly related to department is strong i.e. 0.453 at significance level 0.000 indicate that the hypothesis is acceptable.

H02 Employee engagement is significantly related to Qualification of employee.

Correlations

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Correlations|

| | Qualification| Continuing_With_job|

Qualification| Pearson Correlation| 1| .006|

| Sig. (2-tailed)| | .964|

| N| 50| 50|

Continuing_With_job| Pearson Correlation| .006| 1|

| Sig. (2-tailed)| .964| |

| N| 50| 50|

Analysis

The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between employee engagement is significantly related to Qualification is weak i.e. 0.006 at significance level 0.964 indicate that the hypothesis is rejected.

H03 Employee engagement is significantly related to Designation of employee.

Correlations

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Descriptive Statistics|

| Mean| Std. Deviation| N|

Designation| 7.94| 4.201| 50|

Continuing_With_job| 3.34| 1.272| 50|

Correlations|

| | Designation| Continuing_With_job|

Designation| Pearson Correlation| 1| .164|

| Sig. (2-tailed)| | .254|

| N| 50| 50|

Continuing_With_job| Pearson Correlation| .164| 1|

| Sig. (2-tailed)| .254| |

| N| 50| 50|

Analysis

The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between employee engagement is significantly related to Designation is weak i.e. 0.164 at significance level 0.254 indicate that the hypothesis is rejected.

H04 Employee engagement is significantly related to Working period of employee.

Correlations

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Descriptive Statistics|

| Mean| Std. Deviation| N|

Since_Working| 3.98| 2.162| 50|

Continuing_With_job| 3.34| 1.272| 50|

Correlations|

| | Since_Working| Continuing_With_job|

Since_Working| Pearson Correlation| 1| .488**|

| Sig. (2-tailed)| | .000|

| N| 50| 50|

Continuing_With_job| Pearson Correlation| -.488**| 1|

| Sig. (2-tailed)| .000| |

| N| 50| 50|

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).|

Analysis

The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between employee engagement is significantly related to Working Period is strong i.e. 0.488 at significance level 0.000 indicate that the hypothesis is acceptable.

H05 Employee engagement are effective in various formats of rewards to retain the employees.(Q.11,Q12,Q13,Q14,Q15)

Correlations

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Descriptive Statistics|

| Mean| Std. Deviation| N|

Progress| 3.70| 1.129| 50|

Learn_And_Grow| 3.76| 1.021| 50|

Pay_And_Benefits| 3.48| 1.165| 50|

Promotions| 3.38| 1.159| 50|

Policies| 3.62| 1.048| 50|

Continuing_With_job| 3.34| 1.272| 50|

Analysis

The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between various formats of rewards related to retain the employees is given in following results: 1. The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between various formats of rewards related to retain the employees is strong i.e. 0.726 at significance level 0.000 indicate that hypothesis is accepted. 2. The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between various formats of rewards related to retain the employees is strong i.e. 0.787 at significance level 0.000 indicate that hypothesis is accepted. 3. The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between various formats of rewards related to retain the employees is strong i.e. 0.769 at significance level 0.000 indicate that hypothesis is accepted. 4. The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between various formats of rewards related to retain the employees is strong i.e. 0.811 at significance level 0.000 indicate that hypothesis is accepted. 5. The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between various formats of rewards related to retain the employees is strong i.e. 0.727 at significance level 0.000 indicate that hypothesis is accepted.

H06 Employee engagement activities are effective through social need satisfaction to retain employees. (Q9,Q10)

Correlations

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Descriptive Statistics|

| Mean| Std. Deviation| N|

Quality_Work| 3.76| 1.021| 50|

Best_Friend| 3.70| 1.111| 50|

Continuing_With_job| 3.34| 1.272| 50|

Correlations|

| | Quality_Work| Best_Friend| Continuing_With_job|

Quality_Work| Pearson Correlation| 1| .619**| .567**|

| Sig. (2-tailed)| | .000| .000|

| N| 50| 50| 50|

Best_Friend| Pearson Correlation| .619**| 1| .781**|

| Sig. (2-tailed)| .000| | .000|

| N| 50| 50| 50|

Continuing_With_job| Pearson Correlation| .567**| .781**| 1| | Sig. (2-tailed)| .000| .000| |

| N| 50| 50| 50|

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).|

Analysis

The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between social need satisfaction related to retain employees is given in following results: 1. The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between social need satisfaction related to retain employees is strong i.e. 0.567 at significance level 0.000 indicate that hypothesis is accepted. 2. The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between social need satisfaction related to retain employees is strong i.e. 0.781 at significance level 0.000 indicate that hypothesis is accepted.

H07 Employee engagement activities are effective through self esteem need satisfaction to retain employees. (Q5,Q6,Q7,Q8)

Correlations

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Descriptive Statistics|

| Mean| Std. Deviation| N|

Care_About_You| 3.72| 1.011| 50|

Encourage_Your_Development| 3.70| 1.074| 50|

Opinion_Count| 3.60| 1.050| 50|

Job_Importance| 3.64| 1.064| 50|

Continuing_With_job| 3.34| 1.272| 50|

Analysis

The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between self esteem need satisfaction related to retain employees is given in following results: 1. The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between self esteem need satisfaction related to retain employees is strong i.e. 0.679 at significance level 0.000 indicate that hypothesis is accepted. 2. The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between self esteem need satisfaction related to retain employees is strong i.e. 0.659 at significance level 0.000 indicate that hypothesis is accepted. 3. The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between self esteem need satisfaction related to retain employees is strong i.e. 0.792 at significance level 0.000 indicate that hypothesis is accepted 4. The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between self esteem need satisfaction related to retain employees is strong i.e. 0.741 at significance level 0.000 indicate that hypothesis is accepted.

H08 Employee engagement activities are effective through security needs satisfaction to retain employees. (Q2 & Q3)

Correlations

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Descriptive Statistics|

| Mean| Std. Deviation| N|

Material_And_Equipment| 3.86| 1.088| 50|

Opportunity| 3.72| 1.011| 50|

Continuing_With_job| 3.34| 1.272| 50|

Correlations|

| | Material_And_Equipment| Opportunity| Continuing_With_job| Material_And_Equipment| Pearson Correlation| 1| .743**| .699**| | Sig. (2-tailed)| | .000| .000|

| N| 50| 50| 50|

Opportunity| Pearson Correlation| .743**| 1| .615**|

| Sig. (2-tailed)| .000| | .000|

| N| 50| 50| 50|

Continuing_With_job| Pearson Correlation| .699**| .615**| 1| | Sig. (2-tailed)| .000| .000| |

| N| 50| 50| 50|

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).|

Analysis

The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between security needs satisfaction related to retain employees is given in following results: 1. The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between security needs satisfaction related to retain employees is strong i.e. 0.699 at significance level 0.000 indicate that hypothesis is accepted. 2. The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between security needs satisfaction related to retain employees is strong i.e. 0.615 at significance level 0.000 indicate that hypothesis is accepted.

H09 Employee engagement activities are effective by providing Fitness related benefits to retain employees.(Q.14)

Correlations

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Descriptive Statistics|

| Mean| Std. Deviation| N|

Fitness_Benefits| 3.94| .793| 50|

Continuing_With_job| 3.34| 1.272| 50|

Correlations|

| | Fitness_Benefits| Continuing_With_job|

Fitness_Benefits| Pearson Correlation| 1| .608**|

| Sig. (2-tailed)| | .000|

| N| 50| 50|

Continuing_With_job| Pearson Correlation| .608**| 1|

| Sig. (2-tailed)| .000| |

| N| 50| 50|

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).|

Analysis

The hypothesis frame for testing correlation between employee engagement is significantly related to Fitness benefits is strong i.e. 0.608 at significance level 0.000 indicate that the hypothesis is acceptable.

7.2 Crosstabs

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Case Processing Summary|

| Cases|

| Valid| Missing| Total|

| N| Percent| N| Percent| N| Percent|

Sector * Material_And_Equipment| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%| Sector * Opportunity| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%|

Sector * Material_And_Equipment

Crosstab|

Count|

| | Material_And_Equipment| Total|

| | Strongly Disagree| Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 1| 0| 1| 9| 5| 16|

| IT| 1| 2| 1| 9| 7| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 0| 2| 1| 3| 2| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 0| 2| 0| 4| 0| 6|

Total| 2| 6| 3| 25| 14| 50|

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by

Interval| Pearson’s R| -.218| .132| -1.544| .129c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.216| .126| -1.534| .132c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 4. Relationship between Material_And_Equipments to sectors

Sector * Opportunity

Crosstab|

Count|

| | Opportunity| Total|

| | Strongly Disagree| Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 0| 1| 2| 9| 4| 16|

| IT| 0| 3| 3| 10| 4| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 1| 1| 1| 3| 2| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 0| 2| 1| 3| 0| 6|

Total| 1| 7| 7| 25| 10| 50|

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by Interval| Pearson’s R| -.264| .125| -1.893| .064c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.233| .131| -1.657| .104c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 5. Relationship between opportunity provide to employees to sectors

Analysis

From figure 4. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where requirement of materials and equipments are 56%. 2. IT is sectors where requirement of materials and equipments are 45%. 3. Banking and Insurance is sectors where requirement of materials and equipments are 37%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where requirement of materials and equipments are 66%. From figure 5. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where Opportunities provided are 56%. 2. IT is sectors where Opportunities provided are 50%. 3. Banking and Insurance is sectors where Opportunities provided are 37%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where Opportunities provided are 50%

7.3 Crosstabs

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Case Processing Summary|

| Cases|

| Valid| Missing| Total|

| N| Percent| N| Percent| N| Percent|

Sector * Care_About_You| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%| Sector * Encourage_Your_Development| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%| Sector * Opinion_Count| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%| Sector * Job_Importance| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%|

Sector * Care_About_You

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by Interval| Pearson’s R| -.141| .145| -.985| .329c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.136| .140| -.953| .345c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 6. Relationship between care of an employees to sectors

Crosstab|

Count|

| | Care_About_You| Total|

| | Strongly Disagree| Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 1| 1| 0| 11| 3| 16|

| IT| 0| 3| 3| 11| 3| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 0| 2| 1| 2| 3| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 0| 2| 0| 4| 0| 6|

Total| 1| 8| 4| 28| 9| 50|

Sector * Encourage_Your_Development

Crosstab|

Count|

| | Encourage_Your_Development| Total|

| | Strongly Disagree| Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 0| 2| 1| 9| 4| 16|

| IT| 1| 2| 4| 10| 3| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 0| 2| 0| 4| 2| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 1| 1| 0| 3| 1| 6|

Total| 2| 7| 5| 26| 10| 50|

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by Interval| Pearson’s R| -.150| .152| -1.053| .298c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.117| .144| -.814| .419c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 7. Relationship between Encouragement of the employees to sectors

Sector * Opinion_Count

Crosstab|

Count|

| | Opinion_Count| Total|

| | Strongly Disagree| Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 1| 1| 1| 10| 3| 16|

| IT| 0| 5| 1| 13| 1| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 0| 2| 0| 5| 1| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 1| 1| 0| 3| 1| 6|

Total| 2| 9| 2| 31| 6| 50|

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by Interval| Pearson’s R| -.126| .161| -.881| .383c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.116| .153| -.809| .422c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 8. Relationship between Opinion_count of the employees to sectors

Sector * Job_Importance

Crosstab|

Count|

| | Job_Importance| Total|

| | Strongly Disagree| Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 0| 3| 0| 10| 3| 16|

| IT| 1| 2| 2| 13| 2| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 0| 2| 1| 3| 2| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 1| 1| 1| 2| 1| 6|

Total| 2| 8| 4| 28| 8| 50|

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by Interval| Pearson’s R| -.166| .155| -1.169| .248c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.141| .152| -.987| .329c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 9. Relationship between Job Importance for the employees to sectors

Analysis

From figure 6. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where care about employee is 68%. 2. IT is sectors where care about employee is 55%.

3. Banking and Insurance is sectors where care about employee is 25%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where care about employee is 56%.

From figure 7. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where Encouragement is 56%.

2. IT is sectors where Encouragement is 50%.

3. Banking and Insurance is sectors where Encouragement is 50%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where Encouragement is 50%. From figure 8. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where Opinion is taken into consideration of the employee is 62%. 2. IT is sectors where Opinion is taken into consideration of the employee is 65% 3. Banking and Insurance is sectors where Opinion is taken into consideration of the employee is 62%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where Opinion is taken into consideration of the employee is 50%. From figure 9. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where Job importance through mission and vision is 62%. 2. IT is sectors where Job importance through mission and vision is 65%. 3. Banking and Insurance is sectors where Job importance through mission and vision is 62%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where Job importance through mission and vision is 35%.

7.4 Crosstabs

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Case Processing Summary|

| Cases|

| Valid| Missing| Total|

| N| Percent| N| Percent| N| Percent|

Sector * Quality_Work| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%| Sector * Best_Friend| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%|

Sector * Quality_Work

Crosstab|

Count|

| | Quality_Work| Total|

| | Strongly Disagree| Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 0| 1| 2| 10| 3| 16|

| IT| 0| 2| 4| 9| 5| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 1| 1| 0| 4| 2| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 1| 1| 0| 4| 0| 6|

Total| 2| 5| 6| 27| 10| 50|

| | | | | | |

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by Interval| Pearson’s R| -.224| .138| -1.590| .119c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.137| .133| -.955| .345c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 10. Relationship between Quality of work of the subordinate employees to sectors

Sector * Best_Friend

Crosstab|

Count|

| | Best_Friend| Total|

| | Strongly Disagree| Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 0| 2| 1| 8| 5| 16|

| IT| 1| 4| 1| 8| 6| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 0| 2| 2| 3| 1| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 0| 2| 0| 4| 0| 6|

Total| 1| 10| 4| 23| 12| 50|

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by Interval| Pearson’s R| -.220| .121| -1.560| .125c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.242| .119| -1.725| .091c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 11. Relationship between Best friend of the employees to sectors

Analysis

From figure 10. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where Quality of subordinate works is 62%. 2. IT is sectors where Quality of subordinate works is 45%. 3. Banking

and Insurance is sectors where Quality of subordinate works is 50%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where care Quality of subordinate works is 66%. From figure 11. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where mutual understanding of the employees is 50%. 2. IT is sectors where mutual understanding of the employees is 40%. 3. Banking and Insurance is sectors mutual understanding of the employees is 37%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where care mutual understanding of the employees is 66%.

5.

7.5 Crosstabs

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Case Processing Summary|

| Cases|

| Valid| Missing| Total|

| N| Percent| N| Percent| N| Percent|

Sector * Progress| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%|

Sector * Learn_And_Grow| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%| Sector * Pay_And_Benefits| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%| Sector * Promotions| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%| Sector * Policies| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%|

Sector * Progress

Crosstab|

Count|

| | Progress| Total|

| | Strongly Disagree| Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 1| 2| 0| 9| 4| 16|

| IT| 2| 2| 0| 13| 3| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 0| 1| 2| 3| 2| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 0| 2| 0| 3| 1| 6|

Total| 3| 7| 2| 28| 10| 50|

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by Interval| Pearson’s R| -.070| .141| -.483| .631c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.096| .146| -.669| .506c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 12. Relationship between Progress of the employees to sectors

Sector * Learn_And_Grow

Crosstab|

Count|

| | Learn_And_Grow| Total|

| | Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 2| 1| 9| 4| 16|

| IT| 3| 2| 13| 2| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 3| 0| 1| 4| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 2| 0| 3| 1| 6|

Total| 10| 3| 26| 11| 50|

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by Interval| Pearson’s R| -.122| .150| -.854| .397c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.078| .154| -.541| .591c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 13. Relationship between learn and grow for employees to sectors

Sector * Pay_And_Benefits

Crosstab|

Count|

| | Pay_And_Benefits| Total|

| | Strongly Disagree| Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 0| 2| 0| 10| 4| 16|

| IT| 4| 1| 3| 11| 1| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 0| 2| 2| 3| 1| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 1| 1| 0| 4| 0| 6|

Total| 5| 6| 5| 28| 6| 50|

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by Interval| Pearson’s R| -.229| .128| -1.633| .109c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.287| .126| -2.074| .043c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 14. Relationship between Pay benefits of the employees to sectors

Sector * Promotions

Crosstab|

Count|

| | Promotions| Total|

| | Strongly Disagree| Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 1| 1| 1| 9| 4| 16|

| IT| 1| 6| 6| 4| 3| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 0| 2| 3| 2| 1| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 1| 1| 0| 4| 0| 6|

Total| 3| 10| 10| 19| 8| 50|

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by Interval| Pearson’s R| -.206| .138| -1.456| .152c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.249| .132| -1.778| .082c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 15. Relationship between Promotions of the employees to sectors

Sector * Policies

Crosstab|

Count|

| | Policies| Total|

| | Strongly Disagree| Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 0| 2| 1| 8| 5| 16|

| IT| 2| 2| 3| 11| 2| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 0| 1| 3| 3| 1| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 0| 2| 0| 4| 0| 6|

Total| 2| 7| 7| 26| 8| 50|

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by Interval| Pearson’s R| -.207| .127| -1.466| .149c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.259| .130| -1.860| .069c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 16. Relationship between Policies for the employees to sectors

Analysis

From figure 12. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where Progress for the employee is 56%. 2. IT is sectors where Progress for the employee is 65%.

3. Banking and Insurance is sectors where Progress for the employee is 37%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where Progress for the employee is 66%. From figure 13. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where Learn and growth for the employee is 56%. 2. IT is sectors where Learn and growth for the employee is 65%. 3. Banking and Insurance is sectors where Learn and growth for the employee is 50%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where Learn and growth for the employee is 50%. From figure 14. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where Pay benefits for employees are 62%. 2. IT is sectors where Pay benefits for employees are 50%. 3. Banking and Insurance is sectors where Pay benefits for employees are 37%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where Pay benefits for employees are 66%. From figure 15. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where Promotion benefits for employees are 56%. 2. IT is sectors where Promotion benefits for employees are 20%. 3. Banking and Insurance is sectors where Promotion benefits for employees are 25%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where Promotion benefits for employees are 66%. From figure 16. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where Policies explanations for employees are 50%. 2. IT is sectors where Policies explanations for employees are 55%. 3. Banking and Insurance is sectors where Policies explanations for employees are 37%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where Policies explanations for employees are 66%.

7.6 Crosstabs

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Case Processing Summary|

| Cases|

| Valid| Missing| Total|

| N| Percent| N| Percent| N| Percent|

Sector * Fitness_Benefits| 50| 100.0%| 0| .0%| 50| 100.0%|

Sector * Fitness_Benefits Crosstabulation|

Count|

| | Fitness_Benefits| Total|

| | Disagree| Neither Disagree nor Agree| Agree| Strongly Agree| | Sector| Construction| 1| 1| 8| 6| 16|

| IT| 1| 1| 15| 3| 20|

| Banking & Insurance| 1| 3| 3| 1| 8|

| Pharmaceutical| 1| 0| 5| 0| 6|

Total| 4| 5| 31| 10| 50|

Symmetric Measures|

| | Value| Asymp. Std. Errora| Approx. Tb| Approx. Sig.| Interval by Interval| Pearson’s R| -.281| .136| -2.026| .048c| Ordinal by Ordinal| Spearman Correlation| -.317| .132| -2.319| .025c| N of Valid Cases| 50| | | |

a. Not assuming the null hypothesis.|

b. Using the asymptotic standard error assuming the null hypothesis.| c. Based on normal approximation.|

Figure 17. Relationship between fitness benefits for the employees to sectors

Analysis

From figure 17. We can say that:

1. Construction is sectors where fitness benefit for the employee is 87%. 2. IT is sectors where fitness benefit for the employee is 90%. 3. Banking and Insurance is sectors where fitness benefit for the employee is 50%. 4. Pharmaceutical is sectors where fitness benefit for the employee is 83%.

7.7 Reliability

[DataSet1] E:\Pravin\Project_Analysis.sav

Scale: ALL VARIABLES

Case Processing Summary|

| | N| %|

Cases| Valid| 50| 100.0|

| Excludeda| 0| .0|

| Total| 50| 100.0|

a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in the procedure.|

Reliability Statistics|

Cronbach’s Alpha| Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardized Items| N of Items| .969| .968| 18|

Analysis

Cronbanch’s alpha is 0.968 so it shows that the reliability of this data is 100% as standard value of Cronbanch’s alpha should be 0.8.So if any researcher wants to do any project in future he/she can relies on this data if they wants to conduct researcher based on employee engagement .

Chapter 8. Suggestions for improvement of activity

1. Communicate clear goals and expectations. The majority of employees want to be a part of a compelling future, want to know what is most important at work and what excellence looks like. For targets to be meaningful and effective in motivating employees, they must be tied to larger

organizational ambitions.

2. Share information and numbers. Let them in on what is going on within the company as well as how their jobs contribute to the big picture. When you keep you employees informed they tend to feel a greater sense of worth. Keep communication hopeful and truthful – do not be afraid to share bad news, instead be more strategic about how you deliver it. Improve performance through transparency – By sharing numbers with employees, you can increase employees’ sense of ownership. 3. Encourage open communication. You can get insight into what things are important to the employee by using surveys, suggestion boxes and team meetings. Be open-minded and encourage them to express their ideas and perspectives without criticism. This means putting into practice everything you have learned about effective listening. Address their concerns in the best way you can. 4. Not communicating or communicating late may damage engagement. Hearing about an important update from media, colleagues or family and friends can have a negative impact on employee engagement.

Ensure employees hear these messages from the business as soon as possible. 5. Actively promote organization effectiveness, reputation, values and ethics. Actively promote organizational effectiveness, reputation, values and ethics – Employees want to feel good about their leaders, where they work, the products they sell and the reputation of their company. 6. Culture. Encourage employees to find a personal fit with the company culture. 7. Let staff tell their own stories. Encourage them to tell their own stories about what they are doing to support company strategies or embody organizational values. 8. Trust. Employees need to trust each other as well as their leadership. Employees are constantly watching leadership to see how their decisions affect the strategic direction of the organization and if their behaviors reflect what they say. 9. Building engagement. Show that you’re genuinely concerned about employees’ opinions and use social networking sites as a communications tool to build engagement. 10. Encourage innovation. Engaged employees are innovative. They’re always looking for a better way. 11. Create a strong team environment. Strong employee engagement is dependent on how well employees get along, interact with each other and participate in a team environment. 12. Sense of belonging.

Non-work activities that foster relationships increase employee engagement. 13. Provide constant feedback on the positives. When people know what they’re doing well, they’ll keep doing it – or, even better, do more of it. Providing someone with a little recognition on what they’re doing well can go a long way toward boosting morale. This is not to say “ignore the weaknesses” – just don’t make the weaknesses the only focus area of feedback. This doesn’t mean you should not create accountability, it actually means the opposite – but, if all you do is criticize, people will learn how to hide their mistakes or shift blame. 14. Give immediate feedback. Feedback is two way communication. It is the opportunity to share opinions and find solutions. Too many managers think should be the province of the annual personnel revue. It’s not. It should be a daily occurrence. 15. Show how feedback is being used. Demonstrate to staff how their feedback is being used. 16. Support employees in their work and growth. How many of you have responded to a subordinate’s idea as brilliant or even good. Success begets success. You can support employee growth by providing education and learning opportunities, cross training, coaching, and any other interactions that support employees’ personal development. 17. Collaborate and share on problem solving.

When employees get the idea that their manager or leader is the one who has to solve all the problems, it takes away from their sense of empowerment, and ultimately is likely to decrease engagement over time. Encourage team members to take responsibility, and work through problems or issues on their own, or collaboratively. It’s not the manager’s job to fix everyone else’s problems. 18. Delegation. Delegation is good for you because it expands your managerial span of control. It’s good for your employees because it is a growth opportunity for them. It demonstrates your trust in them to do the job correctly and increases their ownership of the task. 19. Incentives. Incentives that are matched to accountability and results. Managers who want their employees to be engaged recognize that incentives must be allocated based on objective criteria and that different employees are motivated by different things. 20. Celebrate both financial and non-financial achievements. Employees need to feel validated and that they are a valued part of the organization. Leadership needs to show how much they care for their employees and show recognition for efforts: “If you want something to grow, pour champagne on it“. 21. Promote Fitness related activities in your organization.

So employee will remain fit which will easily shown through his performance. Ultimately from all above improvements related to employee engagement goaled to retain employee in organization for long run. So while implementing it Hr should take care of Health and wellness factor as a major tool in employee engagement. As I have conducted researcher according to study, survey, analysis that I have done through data that I have collected first hand will come a very serious point of discussion that Health and wellness is one of the important factor which will not only help to retain employees in any organization but also it will help to increase productivity and healthier work force. So the while conducting employee engagement activities that is to be conducted in eiher big or else small firm you can take help of Talwalkars Better value fitness. Where Talwalkars will help them through their corporate wellness plan which include: Corporate Membership

Stress is the key factor for almost every kind of illness in our corporate society today when taking a vacation with the family only means keeping in touch with your office virtually and staying connected 24×7 with never ending deadlines. No surprise then that pressure keeps mounting both for the employer and the employee.

We understand you and your hectic work schedules which is why Talwalkars offers a range of customized employee fitness/wellness solutions for corporate conglomerates:

• Gym memberships

• Corporate wellness programme

• Weight loss programme

• Zumba fitness programme

• In-office NuForm workouts

• Gym set-up consulting services

• Facility management

Why Talwalkars Employee Wellness Programmes?

Our corporate wellness programmes help increase the confidence of employees by promoting mental and physical health that leads to improved performance not just on the job but also in daily life. Our programmes are generally built towards teams strengthening team spirit and improving the employer-employee loyalty-relationship. All this and much more invariably keeps the overall organisation’s spirit high.

The Talwalkars Corporate Wellness Programme and proper nutrition knowledge can help your organization nurture its biggest asset – its human capital!

Talwalkars – Healthy India Fit India

It is the product of Shri. Madhukar Talwalkar’s vision “to create a health movement where every individual joins irrespective of age, sex, income or geographic location.”

It is not just a smaller format gym! It is a re -engineered product designed to deliver superior value across the board. The business has been designed thoroughly to give 100% success to every franchisee partner who puts his/her trust and faith in the Hi-Fi team led by Shri. Madhukar Talwalkar. The team includes management professionals, architects, design consultants, equipment manufacturers, contractors, material suppliers, etc. The Opportunity – The Indian Fitness Industry:

| 60% population under 30 years|

| 70% consumption from Tier II & III cities|

| The industry is valued at 800 crores (As per 2010 report in Economic Times) and growing at a rate of 12% CAGR|

Talwalkar Reduce

REDUCE is diet based weight loss program which fits into your daily routine comfortably, without any special workout schedules. It helps in effectively losing weight and in effective weight management.

REDUCE can be performed anytime, anywhere – home or office. The low calorie, high fibre foods and nutritionally balanced natural food products which are tasty and convenient; without any hassles of cooking ensures that there is no unwanted starvation, restriction or untimely cravings and leads to pure loss of fat and not water or muscle mass. Losing weight and maintaining target weight is made easy with the timely and the regular checks and monitoring from your dieticians. But at the same time, REDUCE doesn’t require daily visits to the health center. Thus it cuts out travel time and does not interfere with your busy schedules.

REDUCE is a completely revamped weight loss program that’s easy, sensible, healthy and is the pride of our food technologists! REDUCE is one of the best technique ever developed to achieve weight loss for people reluctant or unable to exercise regularly; especially those with hectic work schedules.

The process

* The need for weight loss is analysed – how many kilos to drop * Individual lifestyle is taken cognizance of

* Factors contributing to weight gain are understood

* Any hurdles and difficulties during the day are noted – skipping meals, long gaps between meals, eating out, socializing, etc. * A meal plan is prepared which fits perfectly in the member’s routine lifestyle without any hassle – no starving, food restrictions, hunger pangs or special cooking * Tele-counseling and alternate day visits

* Weight check twice a week

GIFT VOUCHERS

* Talwalkars Gift vouchers are an ideal gift of health come in denominations of ₹500, ₹1000, ₹2000, ₹5000 * These vouchers can be redeemed at any Talwalkars gym in the country. NUFORM

* NuForm – the revolutionary fitness regime, right to your doorstep. * It is a 20-minute workout equivalent to 5 days of regular gym. ZUMBA

* Zumba is fun because you’re not really exercising, you’re dancing! *

Healthy/fit employees are happier with lower stress levels * Exhilarating Dance – Party Workout

* Weekly sessions at your premises.

Chapter 9. CONCLUCION

As we have seen, employees who believe their employer cares about their health and wellbeing are more likely to be loyal, go the extra mile and stay in their jobs for longer. This can bring huge gains for employers who deliver more effectively through increased productivity and performance and can reduce staff turnover, sickness absence and recruitment costs. The fact that so few employers measure the impact health and wellbeing benefits can have on productivity, or return on investment will surely benefited company for long run. If we look for a common theme in this research we could perhaps make the following observation. As cost management has bitten into organizations, employers have to put more focus on supporting employee health and wellbeing through more indirect and non financial means. It’s clear there’s a huge difference between the benefits employees believe they are provided, and those that employers say they provide. Regular communication should be an integral part of any health and wellbeing strategy, (including targeted communication at potential time of need) so employees are aware of the support that’s available.

There’s no point having benefits in place if employees do not appreciate or value them, as this will do nothing to increase their engagement. It is clear that softer approaches to driving engagement through health and wellbeing do pay dividends for employers and employees alike. Given that there’s unlikely to be a sudden relaxation in the financial constraints around employee health and wellbeing, employers would perhaps be wise to consider the most cost effective means to maintain tangible key benefits, whilst at the same time focus on finding ways of enhancing engagement which are less reliant on money. According to survey vast majority of employees (85%) believe there is a link between investing in health and wellbeing as a way to engage with employees, which shows there will be direct evidence of this. So company should invest more on health and wellbeing program as a way to engage with employees.

Chapter 10. REFERENCES

Text References

AbuKhalifeh Nimer Alaa, Ahmad Puad Mat Som (2013),” The Antecedents Affecting Employee Engagement and Organizational Performance”, Vol 9, No 7 ,pp 41 Abraham, S., 2012. Development of Employee Engagement Programme on the basis of Employee Satisfaction Survey. Journal of Economic Development, Management, IT, Finance and Marketing, 4(1), pp. 27-37.

Aktouf, O., 1992. Management and theories of organizations in the 1990s: Toward a critical radical humanism. Academy of Management Review, 17, pp. 407–431.

Attridge, M., 2009. Measuring and Managing Employee Work Engagement: A Review of the Research and Business Literature. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 24(4), pp. 383 – 398.

Bakker, A. and Schaufeli, W., 2008. Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, pp.147–154

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E., 2007. The job demands–resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), pp. 309–328.

Bakker, A.B. and Demerouti, E., 2008. Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), pp.209–223.

Bakker, A.B. and Leiter M.P., 2010. Work engagement: a handbook of essential theory and research. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Bakker, A.B., Hakanen, J.J., Demerouti, E. and Xanthopoulou, D., 2007. Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), pp. 274-284.

Balain S. and Sparrow P., 2009. Engaged to Perform: A new perspective on

employee engagement: Executive Summary. Lancaster University Management School.

Barsade, S., 2002. ‘The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, pp. 644-77. Binder, C. (1998).

The Six Boxes™: A descendent of Gilbert’s Behavioral Engineering Model. Performance Improvement, 37(6), 48-52. Blumberg B., Cooper, D.R. and Schindler P.S., 2005. Business research methods. London: McGraw-Hill.

Bright, L., 2010. Why Age Matters in the Work Preferences of Public Employees: A Comparison of Three Age-Related Explanations. Public Personnel Management, 39(1), pp.1-14.

Britt, T.W., Adler, A.B. and Bartone, P.T., 2001. Deriving benefits from stressful events: The role of engagement in meaningful work and hardiness. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6(1), pp. 53-63.

Buchanan, D., 1979. The Development of Job Design Theories and Techniques. New York: Praeger Publishers.

Cartwright, S. and Holmes, N., 2006. The meaning of work: the challenge of regaining employee engagement and reducing cynicism. Human Resource Management Review, 16, pp. 199–208.

Corporate Leadership Council, 2002. Building the High-Performance Workforce A Quantitative Analysis of the Effectiveness of Performance Management Strategies,

Washington ,DC

Creswell, J.W., 2009. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Demerouti, Evangelia; Mostert, Karina; Bakker, Arnold B.( Jul 2010),”Journal of Occupational Health Psychology”, Vol 15(3), ,209-222. Denscombe, M.,

2001. The good research guide: for small-scale social research projects. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Dernovsek, D., 2008. Engaged Employees. Credit Union Magazine, 74(5), pp. 42.

DeRue, D.S. and Morgeson, F.P., 2007. Stability and change in person-team and person-role fit over time: The effects of growth satisfaction, performance, and general self-efficacy. Journal of Applied Psychology. 92(5), pp. 1242-1253.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S. and Sowa,D., 1986. Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), pp. 500–507 Evelina Rog (2008),” A strategy for improving employee recruitment, retention and engagement within hospitality organizations”,” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management”,vol.20,pp 743-757. Flick, U., 2008. Designing Qualitative Research. [e-book] London : SAGE Publications, Limited, Thousand Oaks.

Fredrickson, B.L. and Joiner, T., 2002. Positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Psychological Science, 13, pp. 172-175.

Fredrickson, B.L., 2001. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: the broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American Psychologist,56, pp. 218-226.

Gallup, 2010, Employee engagement. What is your ration?

George, J. M., Reed, T. F., Ballard, K. A., Colin, J. And Fielding, J., 1993. Contact with AIDS patients as a source of work-related distress: Effects of organizational and social support. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 157–171.

Ghauri, P. and Grønhaug, K., 2006. Research methods in business studies: a practical guide. 3rd ed. London: Ft Prentice Hall.

Graen G.B., 2008. Enriched engagement through assistance to systems’ change: a proposal. Industrial and Organisational Psychology, 1, pp. 74–75.

Gravenkemper, S., 2007. Building Community in Organizations: Principles of Engagement. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(3), pp. 203-208.

Grawitch, M.J., Gottschalk, M. and Munz, D.C., 2006. The path to a healthy workplace: A critical review linking healthy workplace practices, employee well-being, and organizational improvements. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(3), pp. 129 – 147.

Greenberg, J., 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, pp. 399-432.

Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R., 1980. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Hakanen, J., Bakker, A.B. and Schaufeli, W.B., 2006. Burnout and work engagement among teachers. The Journal of School Psychology, 43, pp. 495-513.

Hallberg, Ulrika E.; Schaufeli, Wilmar B.(2006),”European Psychologist”, Vol 11(2),119-127. Hallam G.L., 1996. The adventures of team fantastic: a practical guide for team leaders and members. [e-book] Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership.

Hallberg U.E. and Schaufeli W.B., 2006. “Same same” but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?.

European Psychologist, 11(2), pp. 119–27.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L., 2002. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,

pp.268-279.

Heintzman R. and Marson B., 2005. People, service and trust: Links in a public sector service value chain. International Review of Administrative Studies, 7(4), pp. 549-575.

Hermsen, J. and Rosser, V., 2008. Examining Work Engagement and Job Satisfaction of Staff Members in Higher Education. CUPA-HR Journal . 59(2), pp. 10-18.

Igbaria, M. and Buimaraes, T., 1993. Antecedents and consequences of job satisfaction among information center employees. Journal of Management Information Systems, 9(4), pp.145–175.

Johnsrud, L.K. and Rosser, V.J., 1999. College and University Midlevel Administrators: Explaining and Improving Their Morale. The Review of Higher Education, 22(2), pp. 121-141.

Jurkiewicz, C. and Brown, R.,1998. GenXer’s vs. boomers vs. matures:generational comparisons of public employees’ motivation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 18(4), pp.18–37. Kahn, W. A. (1990).

Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. Kahn, W., 1990. Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, pp. 692-724.

Kahn, W., 1992. To be full there: psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, pp. 321-49.

Kanuk and Berenson, Mail surveys, p.450 Reprinted from the Journal of Marketing Research, published by the American Marketing Association, in B. Blumberg, D.R. Cooper, P.S. Schindler, 2005. Business research methods. London: McGraw-Hill.

Karsan. R., 2011. Engaging and aligning employees. Training Journal, p.52-55

Koyuncu, M., Burke, R.J. and Fiksenbaum, L., 2006. Work engagement among womenmanagers and professionals in a Turkish bank: potential antecedents and consequences. Equal Opportunities International, 25, pp. 299-310.

Kristof, A.L.,1996. Person–Organization Fit: An Integrative Review of Its Conceptualizations, Measurement, and Implications. Personnel Psychology, 49 (1), pp. 1–49.

Langelaan, S., Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Van Rhenen, W. and Van Doornen, L.J.P., 2006. Do burned-out and work-engaged employees differ in the functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis?. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment, and Health, 32, pp. 339-48.

Lawler, E.E. and Hall, D.T., 1970. Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, pp. 305–312.

Lockwood, N.R., 2007. Leveraging Employee Engagement for Competitive Advantage: HR’s Strategic Role. HR Magazine, 52(3), Special section pp. 1-11.

Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Norman, S.M. and Combs, G.M., 2006. Psychological capital development: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27, pp. 387–393. Markos, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010).

“Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance”. International Journal of Business & Management, 5(12), 89-96. Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P., 2001. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, pp. 397-422.

Mauno S., Kinnunen U. and Ruokolainen M., 2007. Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: a longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, pp. 149–171.

May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M., 2004. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety, and availability and the engagement of the human

spirit at work. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 77, pp. 11-37.

Mone, E.M., and London, M., 2010. Employee Engagement: Through Effective Performance Management – A Practical Guide for Managers. Taylor & Francis Group NY.

Nelson, D.L., Macik-Frey, M. and Quick, J.C., 2007. Advances in Occupational Health: From a Stressful Beginning to a Positive Future. Journal of Management, 33(6), pp. 809-840

Ologbo, C.A. and Saudah, S., 2011. Engaging People who Drive Execution and Organizational Performance. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 3(3), pp. 569-575.

Paradise, A., 2008. Influences Engagement. T+D, 62(1), pp. 54-59.

Penna, 2006. Meaning at Work Research Report.

Porter, C., 2008. Exploring human resource management. London: McGaw-Hill p.442

Quick, J.C., Macik‐Frey, M. and Cooper, C.L., 2007. Managerial Dimensions of Organizational Health: The Healthy Leader at Work. Journal of Management Studies, 44(2), pp. 189 – 205.

Rashid, H.A., Asad, A. and Ashraf, M.M., 2011. Factors Persuading Employee Engagement and Linkage of EE to Personal & Organizational Performance. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 3(5), pp. 98-108.

Rhoades, .L, Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S., 2001. Affective commitment to the organization: the contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, pp. 825-36.

Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. 2002. Perceived organizational support: a

review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 698-714.

Robertson-Smith G. and Markwick C., 2009. Employee Engagement A review of current thinking. Institute for Employment Studies, Report 469.

Robinson, D., 2007. Engagement is marriage of various factors at work. Thought Leaders, pp.37.

Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S., 2004. The Drivers of Employee Engagement. Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton

Rosser V.J., 2000. Midlevel Administrators: What We Know. New Directions for Higher Education, 111, pp. 5-13.

Saks, A.M., 2006. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, pp, 600-619.

Salanova, M., Agut, S. and Peiro, J.M., 2005. Linking organizational resources and work engagement to employee performance and customer loyalty: the mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), pp. 1217–1227.

Salanova, M., Llorens, S., Cifre, E., Martı´nez, I. and Schaufeli, W.B., 2003. Perceived collective efficacy, subjective well-being and task performance among electronic work groups: An experimental study. Small Groups Research, 34, pp. 43–73.

Sanchez, P. and McCauley, D. 2006. Measuring and Managing Engagement in a Cross-Cultural Workforce: New Insights for Global Companies. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 26(1), pp. 41 – 50.

Sange, R. & Srivasatava R.K., 2012. Employee Engagement and Mentoring: An Empirical Study of Sales Professionals. Synergy, 10(1), pp. 37-50

Schaufeli, W., Martı´nez, I., Marque´s-Pinto, A., Salanova, M. and Bakker,

A.B., 2002. Burnout and engagement in university students: A crossnationa study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, pp. 464–481.

Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B., 2004. Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multisample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, pp. 293–315.

Schaufeli, W.B. and Salanova, M., 2007. Work engagement: an emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In: S.W. Gilliland, D.D. Steiner, and D.P. Skarlicki, ed, 2007, Research in Social Issues in Management: Managing Social and Ethical Issues in Organizations, Information Age Publishers, Greenwich, CT.

Schaufeli, W.B., Bakker, A.B. and Van Rhenen, W., 2009. How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(7), pp. 893 – 917.

Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V. and Bakker, A.B., 2002. The measurementof engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, pp. 71-92.

Schneider, B. & Bowen, D., 1993. The service organization: Human resource management is crucial. Organizational Dynamics, 21, pp. 39–52.

Scott, R.A., 1978. Lords, Squires and Yeoman: Collegiate Middle Managers and Their Organizations. Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Education.

Scottish Executive, 2007. Employee engagement in the Public Sector: a review of literature.

Seijts, G.H. and Crim, D., 2006. What engages employees the most or, the ten C’s of employee engagement. Ivey Business Journal Online, 70(4), pp. 1-5.

Shamir, B., House, R.J. and Arthur, M.B., 1993. The motivational effect of

charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science, 4, pp. 577−594.

Shuck, B. and Wollard, K., 2010. Employee Engagement and HRD: A Seminal Review of the Foundations Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), pp. 89-110.

Shuck, B., 2011. Four Emerging Perspectives of Employee Engagement: An Integrative Literature Review. Human Resource Development Review, 10(3), pp. 304-328 .

Song, J.H. and Kim, H.M., 2009. The integrative structure of employee commitment: The influential relations of individuals’ characteristics in a supportive learning culture. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 30(3), pp.240–255.

Song, J.H., Kolb, J.A., Lee, U.H. and Kim, H.K., 2012. Role of transformational leadership in effective organizational knowledge creation practices: Mediating effects of employees’ work engagement. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23(1), pp. 65-101.

Sy, T., Cote, S. and Saavedra, R., 2005. The contagious leader: impact of leader’s affect on group member affect and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, pp. 295-305.

Temkin, B., 2012. Employee Engagement Benchmark Study. Temkin Group.

Tims, M., Bakker, A.B., Xanthopoulou, D., 2011. Do transformational leaders enhance their followers’ daily work engagement?. Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), pp. 121-131.

Towers Perrin, 2003. Working today: understanding what drives employee engagement.

Towers Perrin.

Wah, L., 1999. Engaging employees a big challenge. Management Review, 88(9), pp. 10.

Westbrook, S. D., 1980. Morale Proficiency and Discipline. Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 8(1), pp. 43 – 54.

Westman, M., 2001. Stress and strain crossover. Human Relations, 54, pp. 557-91.

Xanthopoulou, D., Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Schaufeli, W.B., 2007. The role of personal resources in the job demands-resources model. International Journal of Stress Management, 14(2), pp. 121-41

Chapter 11. WEBLIOGRAPHY

5. <http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=HRS/USA/2003/200309/Tale nt_2003.pdf> [Accessed 12th May 2013].

6. <http://experiencematters.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/small-companies-have-more- engaged-employees/> [Accessed 12th May 2013].

7. <http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/05/09111348/3> [Accessed 14 th May 2013].

8. <http://www.e – penna.com/newsopinion/research.aspx> [Accessed 15th May 2013].

9. <http://www.asb.eblib.com.ez.statsbiblioteket.dk> [Accessed 20th May 2013].

10. <http://www.gallup.com/consulting/121535/employee-engagement-overview-

brochure.aspx> [Accessed 20th June 2013].

11. www.talwalkars.net [Accessed every day].

Annexure 1 QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE

SURVEY OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

GENERAL INFORMATION: To be used only for the purpose of analysis DESIGNATION| | QUALIFICATION| |

WORKING SINCE(Month & Year)| | DEPARTMENT| |

Please tick mark the relevant answer as provided against each question.

Strongly Disagree(1)| Disagree(2)| Neither Agree nor Disagree(3)| Agree(4)| Strongly Agree(5)|

1. Do you know what is expected of you at work? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

2. Do you have the materials and equipment you (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) need to do your work right?

3. At work, do you have the opportunity to do (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) what you do best every day?

4. In the last seven days, have you received (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) recognition or praise for doing good work?

5. Does your supervisor, or someone at work, (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) seem to care about you as a person?

6. Is there someone at work who encourages (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) your development?

7. At work, do your opinions seem to count? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

8. Does the mission/purpose of your company (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) make you feel your job is important?

9. Are your associates (fellow employees) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) committed to doing quality work?

10. Do you have a best friend at work? (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

11. In the last six months, has someone at work (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) talked to you about your progress?

12. In the last year, have you had opportunities (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) at work to learn and grow?

13. Are the pay and benefits in your organization (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) comparable to similar companies?

14. If company provides you any fitness related (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) benefit would you like to opt for it?

15. Are job promotions in this organization fair (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) and objective?

16. Are organization policies clearly (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) communicated in the organization?

17. Do you see yourself continuing to work for (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) this organization two years from now?