You are on page 1of 14

Employee Engagement A Study with Special

reference to School faculty of Rural Areas


Dr. V. Vijay Anand, M.Priyadharshini& Vijayalakshmi
Asst. Professor, School of Management, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, TN - India
MBA 2nd year, School of Management, SASTRA University, Thanjavur, TN - India
E-mail: mugunthpriya94@gmail.com priyarajhan@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Employee engagement is a very driver in the organization to achieve thegoal towards
productivity. EE is an emotional and psychological attachment of an employee within
organizational work environment. There are many factors are influencing employee
engagement in association with demographic factors. The researchers have identified some
variables and were grouped into one factor viz., Individual factor. Researchers have made an
attempt to understand the relationship between the demographic factors and individual factor.
139 samples have been chosen for this study. The researchers have applied the statistical tools
such as chi-square test, ANOVA and Regression.
Key Words: Employee engagement, Growth
Role Clarity, Productivity.

&

Development,

Discretionary

Effort,

I INTRODUCTION
Engagement is a key buzzword in 21st century management. Strategic human resource
management rests on the belief that people are the key to achieving competitive advantage.
Employees need to be seen as assets to be developed, not costs to be controlled. This free
course explores three key themes: employee engagement, employee involvement and collective
aspects of employee relations. Engagement is a key buzzword in 21st century management.
Strategic human resource management rests on the belief that people are the key to achieving
competitive advantage. Employees need to be seen as assets to be developed, not costs to be
controlled. This free course explores three key themes: employee engagement, employee
involvement and collective aspects of employee relations. Employee engagement appears to
have a relatively Robust research community contributing to contemporary theorizing. It is
based largely in the psychological sciences and particularly organization and industrial
psychology. There is also a significant body of research that investigates employee engagement
in schools and school systems, with an obvious sampling bias toward teacher groups. The
impetus for this attention to engagement is the emerging empirical evidence that engagement
has significant benefits for organizations of all kinds. A number of studies have challenged the
extent to which suitable work experience placements have been available to young people
seeking specific occupational interests. Hodgkinson and Hammill (2010) have argued that the
utopian ideal of all civil engineering undergraduates having a relevant (work experience)
placement is unobtainable.
II STUDY VARIABLES
1. DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLE

Age
Gender
Income
Years of experience
Position
Area

Qualification

2. INDEPENDENT VARIABLE
Job
Co-Workers
Superior
Department
Organization
Rewards and Recognition
Opportunities
Team work
Immediate supervisor
Output 1
Output 2
3. EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT (Gallup 12 Q)
Expectations
Materials and equipment
Opportunity to do what I do best
Recognition for good work
Someone at work cares about me
Encourages my development
Opinions count
Mission/Purpose
Associates committed to quality
Best friend
Progress
Learn & grow
.4. OUTCOME
High performance
Employee stay
III CONCEPTUAL FRAME WORK

Independent
Variables
Job
Co-Workers
Communication
Superior
Department
Organization
Rewards and
recognition
Opportunities
Team work
Immediate

Demograph
ic factors
Vares

High
Performance

Employee
Engagement
Employee
Stay

Communication

III STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM


During past two decades, employee engagement became a very popular managerial
concept. Organizations use different engagement building tools in order to stay competitive and
improve performance. The aim of this paper is to contribute to the research regarding the
engagement of administrative workers within educational institutions, as this part of the
employees is rarely studied, though their day-to-day performance has a significant influence on
the quality of the entire institution performance. This paper will apply the engagement theory
and engagement measuring methods to measure the existing level of engagement of
administrative workers in the educational institution. Henceforth, the researchers have chosen
employees of School employees from rural areas of Thanjavur& Trichy viz., (Thiruvaiyaru,
Ayyampet, Papanasam &Vallam). Employee engagement facilitates the organization towards
employees performance and their thought provoking in a better manner. The aim is to find the
current engagement level of employees and to find the factors, which need to be improved in
order to further increase engagement. The problem statement will be addressed through the
quantitative study, with the aim of identifying the current level of administrative workers
engagement and which work related aspects need to be improved for the purpose of deeper
engagement. The present research will help leaders to highlight the areas for improvement. The
results also helps regarding which areas they need to pay more attention to in order to improve
administrative workers engagement, and in order to be a better work place.
IV OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH
To study the association between demographic variables of respondents and
employee engagement
To understand the variation between the independent factors and employee
engagement of school employees of rural areas
To study the effect of independent factors on employee engagement
To study the relationship between employee engagement and higher performance
as outcome variable
To understand the effect of employee engagement and high performance &
employee stay as outcome variable
V LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH
This study is restricted to School employees especially in rural areas. Researchers have
chosen 139 samples from selected rural school of Thanjavur and Trichy area. The results may
vary according to the perceptions and opinions of the respondents.
VI RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This research is based on the analytical in nature. The primary data were collected
through the structured questionnaire with the sample size of 139 by adopting simple random
sampling and snow-ball method.The statistical tools such as chi-square test, ANOVA&
Regression analysis were applied to meet out the study objectives. The study variable have been
chosen in three dimensions viz., demographic variables, Individual variables, Employee
Engagement by applying Gallup 12 Q statements and Career satisfaction & Retention as
outcome variables.
VII HYPOTHESIS STATEMENTS

1. There is no association between the demographic factors and employee engagement.


2. Individual factor do not vary with the demographic characteristics of the respondents.
3. There is no significant effect of individual factors on employee engagement.
4. There is no relationship between employee engagement and outcome variables.
VIII LITERATURE REVIEW
Kahn, W. A. (1990) In this article the author has a positive approach of employee in
the direction of organization and its standards An engaged employee know his/her role
and the goals of the organization. They are intellectually and emotionally certain with
their organization and play their role to meet and exceed the organizational expectations
with commitment to follow its values. Such workers go beyond elementary work
obligations to glad the clients and struggle the business onward. High level of
engagement not only direct individual towards positive results but also leads for high
level organizational outcomes.
Bhatla, N. (2011) The author reveals that the existence of high level of engagement
considerably decreases turnover intentions, enhances commitment, create passion for
work and increases earnings per share.
Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997) The researcher found contextual
performance is a behavior adopted by employees to follow the organization rules,
policies, go for an extra effort, helping and cooperating with others and sharing
information with colleague for solving work related problems.
Avery, G., & Cameron, F. (1998) - Here the author examine a contextual performance is
the supplementary job proficiency which forms the organizational, social and
psychological environment for achieving organization goals.
Sarangi, S., & Srivastava, R. K. (2012) This articles compared a better level of
commitment, motivation and optimistic behavior about their work goals.
Matamala, Pace and Thometz, (2010) - In this author reviled positive relationship
between employee engagement and contextual performance in their studies of
antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.
Babcock-Roberson and Strickland (2010) - The author established an association
between employee engagement and contextual performance. They found that a strong
positive relationship exist between employee engagement and contextual performance.
LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000) The researcher concludes that there is a
positive and significant relationship between employee engagement and contextual
performance.
Ewing and Smith, (2003) In this review stated that Teacher turnover and attrition also
happen other western countries with an estimated 25-40% of beginning teachers leaving
their job.
A. Bakker & W. Schaufeli (2008) The author reviled that Employees are selfmotivated and others are not. The study clearly shows that peoples engagement with
their work is directly what they see and experience within their company. So, you could
place an individual who has always been highly engaged into their career into a new, but
dysfunctional work environment. Conversely, a previously disengaged employee may
become fully engaged under different circumstances.
Brookhart, S.M. and D.J. Freeman, (1992) - This article presents a descriptive synthesis
of findings from these studies. The principle of thematic consistency with empirical
variabilitythat is, that the general conclusions of the studies have been similar even
though the data have shown differences from study to studyis advanced to organize a
discussion of what is known about entering teacher candidates and suggestions for future
research in this field.
Ewing, R.A. and D.L. Smith,( 2003) The author Despite increased success in attracting
quality graduates into teacher education and growing support for the induction and
mentoring of beginning teachers, it is well established in countries in the Western world,

The recent Review of Teacher Education in New South Wales, Australia, highlighted the
alarming upward trend in early career teacher resignation rates in NSW over the past
four years.
Bakker, Arnold B.; Hakanen, Jari J.; Demerouti, Evangelia; Xanthopoulou, Despoina
(2007) In this articles the author stated On the basis of the job demands-resources
model, the authors predicted that job resources act as buffers and diminish the negative
relationship between pupil misbehavior and work engagement.
Mark L. Savickas, Nadya.A. Fouad (2007) This author examined that the Job control
and organization-based self-esteem proved to be the best lagged predictors of the three
dimensions of work engagement.
A familiar starting point in literature considering the impact of employer engagement in
education is the initial lament over the lack of robust data on the impact of activities
(AIR UK, 2008; Bartlett, 2009; Gillie, 2012).
Johnsrud and Rosser (1999) also suggest that the smaller the institution, the more
positive administrative workers moral and consequentially the higher chances for their
engagement.
Green & Rogers, (1997) - This study captured the views of teaching staff who argued
that pupil participants increased in confidence, maturity and in their social skills. They
found, moreover, evidence of attitudinal change in terms of improved motivation in
class, increased completion of homework assignments and higher levels of attendance
Ofsteds ( 2007) The author review of the Young Apprenticeship programme
through which schools offered a more varied curriculum at Key Stage 4, rich in
employer engagement (including 50+ days of work experience) and aimed at pupils of
average and above average ability suggested high levels of relevance in preparing
young people for the world of work.
Balarin et al., (2008) - The author viewed study involvement of businesses and their
employees in school governing is greatly appreciated by schools, employee volunteers
themselves and the businesses that are most proactive in supporting their employees
volunteering activities.
Dollard and Bakker (2010), in their study of teachers and administrators in Australia,
argued that psychosocial safety climate (PSC) precedes both job demands and job
resources.

IX DATA ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION


Table No: 1
Demographic profile of the respondents

1.

Age (Yrs)
%

2.

3.

5.

20-25

26-30

31-35

36-40

41 & above

17

40

47

24

11

12%

29%

34%

17%

8%

Male

Female

57

82

41%

59%

Monthly
Income (Rs.)

15,000-20,000

20,001
25,000

25,001
30,000

29

52

48

10

21%

37%

35%

7%

Experience

0-5

6-10

11-15

16-20

20&above

52

45

32

06

04

Gender

30001&above

%
Position

6.

%
Area

7.

37%

32%

High

Middle

23%

4%
Low

36

78

25

26%

56%

18%

Urban

Rural

59

80

42%

58%

4%

Source: Primary Data


The above table depicts that 34% of respondents were in the age group
of 31-35 years. The table also shows that 59% of respondents were female and the rest of
respondents were male. 37%of respondents were in the monthly income group of Rs.20, 001 to
Rs. 25,000.
Table 5.1 also depicts that 58% of respondents were in rural areas rest of respondents
were urban. 56% of respondents were in the middle level of employment position. The majority
of the respondents (37% & 32%) have more experience such as 0-5yrs and (6-10) yrs
categories.
Table No: 2
Chi-Square Test betweenDemographic factors and Employee Engagement
S.No

Factors

2 Value

Sig.

Decision

1.

Age

1.984

0.00

Reject

2.

Gender

75.25

0.02

Reject

3.

Monthly income

1.935

0.00

Reject

4.

Years of experience

1.870

0.00

Reject

5.

Position

1.072

0.00

Reject

6.

Area

53.686

0.32

Accept

7.

Qualification

2.834

0.09

Accept

(*= Ho accepted at 5% significance level)


Hypothesis (H0): There is no association between demographic factors of respondents and the
employee engagement.
From the above table it was found that null hypothesis is rejected (p<0.05) and it was
concluded that there is association between the demographic factors such as age, gender,
monthly income, experience, position of the respondents with the employee engagement.
The results also revealed that there is no association between the area and qualification of the
respondents and the employee engagement, since the null hypothesis is accepted (p>0.05).
Table No: 3
Employee Engagement and the Demographic characteristics
of the respondents One way ANOVA

S.No.

Demographic Factors

Sig.

Decision

1.

Gender

1.958

0.012

Reject

2.

Age

3.749

0.000

Reject

3.

Income

3.056

0.019

Reject

4.

Year of experience

2.251

0.034

Reject

5.

Position

2.653

0.136*

Accept

6.

Area

3.318

0.069*

Accept

7.

Qualification

6.110

0.173*

Accept

(*H0 accepted at 5% significance level)

Hypothesis (H0): Employee Engagementdo not vary with the demographic characteristics of
the respondents.
From the table, the results reveal that the employee engagement do vary with the
demographic factors such as gender, age, income and experience of the respondents. (p<0.05)
The results also revealed that the employee engagement do not vary with the demographic
factors viz., position, area and qualification of the respondents (p>0.05).
Table No: 3.1
Unstandardized Coefficients of Regression Model Independent factors - I
And Employee engagement
Predictors

S.No

Unstandardized Coefficients

Sig.

Std. Error

(Constant)

0.011

0.447

0.043

1.

Job

0.455

0.129

0.001*

2.

Co-Workers

0.304

0.136

0.027*

3.

Superior

0.110

0.128

0.394

4.

Department

0.127

0.135

0.047*

5.

Organization

0.151

0.100

0.033*

R = 0.757

R2 = 0.573

Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant effect of independent factors -I on employee


engagement
The above shows that the predictor variables such as job, co-workers, superior,
Department, Organization (p<0.05) are statistically significant towards employee engagement.
The table also shows that the variable, i.e., immediate supervisor is not significant (p>0.05).The
table also depicted the R and R2 values of the model. The R value represents the simple
correlation and is 0.757, which indicated a high degree of correlation between the individual
factors and employee engagement.The R2 value indicated that 57.3 % (0.573) of variance in
dependent variable employee engagement is explained by the independent variables.
From the above table, it can be inferred that there are significant effects of independent
factors viz., job, co-workers, superior, Department, Organizationon employee engagement. The
researcher also inferred that there is no significant effect of factor viz., immediate superior on

employee engagement.
The significant individual factors with predictors values towards employee engagement are
shown in the figure: 1
Job
0.455

Co-workers

Employe
e
Engagem
ent

0.304

Department

0.127

0.151

Organization

Figure: 1
Regression Model - Individual Factor - Iand Employee Engagement
Table No: 3.2
Unstandardized Coefficients of Regression Model Independent factors II
and Employee engagement

Predictors

S.No

Unstandardized Coefficients

Sig.

Std. Error

(Constant)

1.056

0.389

0.008

1.

Rewards & Recognition

0.109

0.109

0.027*

2.

Opportunities

0.489

0.106

0.000*

3.

Team work

0.333

0.099

0.001*

4.

Immediate supervisor

0.059

0.115

0.610

5.

Communication

0.175

0.093

0.048*

R = 0.794

R2 = 0.630

* = significance at 5%level
* (If the sig. of p is less than 0.05, and it indicates that the concerned factor is significant in the
model)
Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant effect of Independent factors II on employee
engagement
The above shows that the predictor variables such as rewards & recognition,
opportunities, team work and communication (p<0.05) are statistically significant towards
employee engagement. The table also shows that the variable, i.e., immediate supervisoris not
significant (p>0.05).The table also depicted the R and R2 values of the model. The R value

represents the simple correlation and is 0.794, which indicated a high degree of correlation
between the individual factors and employee engagement.The R2 value indicated that 63 %
(0.630) of variance in dependent variable employee engagement is explained by the
independent variables.
From the above table, it can be inferred that there are significant effects of independent factors
viz., rewards & recognition, opportunities, team work and communicationon employee
engagement. The researcher also inferred that there is no significant effect of factor viz.,
immediate supervisor on employee engagement.
The significant individual factors with predictors values towards employee engagement
are shown in the figure: 2
Rewards &
Recognition
0.109

Opportunities

Employee
Engagement

0.489

0.333

Team Work

0.175

Communication

Figure: 2
Regression Model - Individual Factor IIand Employee Engagement
Table No: 4
Chi-Square Test between Employee Engagement and Outcome factors
S.No
1.

Factors
High performance

2.
Employee stay
(* = Ho accepted at 5% significance level)

2 Value

Sig.

Decision

5.198

0.00

Reject

7.788

0.00

Reject

Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant relationship between the employee engagement and
Outcome factors
From the table, it is found that there is a significant relationship between employee
engagement and outcome factors viz., high performance & employee retention, since p value is
less than 0.05. Hence null hypothesis is rejected and alternate hypothesis is accepted.

Table No: 5
Unstandardized Coefficients of Regression Model Employee engagement
And High performance
Predictors

S.No

1.

Unstandardized Coefficients

Sig.

Std. Error

(Constant)

2.655

0.376

0.000

High performance

0.218

0.102

0.033*

R = 0.812

R2 = 0.659

Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant effect of employee engagement on career satisfaction


The above table shows that the R value which represents the simple correlation and is
0.812 which indicates a high degree of correlation between the individual factors and employee
engagement.The R2 value indicated that 65.9 % (0.659) of variance in dependent variable
High performance is explained by the independent variable viz., employee engagement.
From the table, it can be inferred that there is (p<0.05) statistical significant effect of
employee engagement on high performance
Table No: 6
Unstandardized Coefficients of Regression Model Employee engagement
And Employee stay
Predictors

S.No

1.

Unstandardized Coefficients

Sig.

Std. Error

(Constant)

2.680

0.296

0.000

Employee stay

0.236

0.088

0.009*

R = 0.761

R2 = 0.579

Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant effect of employee engagement on employee stay


The above table shows that the R value which represents the simple correlation and is 0.761
which indicated a high degree of correlation between the study factors and employee
engagement.The R2 value indicated that 57.9 % (0.579) of variance in dependent variable
Employee Stay is explained by the independent variable viz., employee engagement.
From the table, it can be inferred that there is (p<0.05) statistical significant effect of employee
engagement on employee stay.

X RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


1. There is an association between the demographic factors and employee engagement.
2. There is no association between demographic factors of respondents and the employee
engagement. The results also revealed that there is no association between the area and
qualification of the respondents and the employee engagement, since the null hypothesis
is accepted.
3. Employee Engagement does not vary with the demographic characteristics of the
respondents.
4. There is no significant effect of independent factors -I on employee engagement.
5. There is no significant effect of Independent factors II on employee engagement.
6. There is no significant relationship between the employee engagement and Outcome
factors.
7. There is no significant effect of employee engagement on career satisfaction. The R2
value indicated that 65.9 % (0.659) of variance in dependent variable High
performance is explained by the independent variable viz., employee engagement.
From the table, it can be inferred that there is (p<0.05) statistical significant effect of
employee engagement on high performance
8. There is no significant effect of employee engagement on employee stay. The R2 value
indicated that 57.9 % (0.579) of variance in dependent variable Employee Stay is
explained by the independent variable viz., employee engagement. From the table, it can
be inferred that there is (p<0.05) statistical significant effect of employee engagement
on employee stay.

XI RECOMMENDATIONS
According to study results, there is positive relationship between the factors viz.,
organizational and group factors with employee engagement. The predictor variables such as
job, co-workers, superior, Department, Organization are statistically significant towards
employee engagement. The variable, i.e., superior is not significant. The predictor variables
such as rewards & recognition, opportunities, team work and communication are statistically
significant towards employee engagement. The independent variable, i.e., immediate
supervisors is not significant. These factors are equally gets more importance and gives better
performance. As per this study, more involvements have to be needed to the employees which
will give more impact in the organization. In the current competitive scenario, organization has
to do something different, otherwise they cannot beat the completion and sustain with their
competitors. So, the organization should give more importance to all the study factors very
carefully for the effective employee engagement. The organization also facilitates the good
work environment to employees to exhibit their talents with fullest efforts.

XII CONCLUSION
Understanding teacher engagement is critical to understanding the psychological
processes underlying effective teaching. Our aim was to create a measure of teacher
engagement that reflects the particular features of working in classrooms and in schools, and
especially the social interactions shared by teachers and students. This paper brief about
available school division documents points to a number of positive and consistent policies and
practices to promote employee engagement. However, a few gaps that occur in most contexts
and some variability among the divisions studied. The reader is cautioned about the limitations
of the documentary sources accessed, but very least, the review should serve to highlight the
kinds of explicit messaging that are present with respect to the phenomenon of employee
engagement. If we assume that the choices made about the kinds of messages to highlight
reflect the priorities and values in school divisions, perhaps reflection on what is presented in
these paper provide some insight into the practices employed in rural school divisions in the
province.

REFERENCES
[1] Kahn, W. A. (1990) Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work, The Journal of Positive Psychology. 5(1). pp. 83-96.
[2] Bhatla, N. (2011) The role of conscientiousness. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 80. pp.
555-564.
[3] Bormann, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997 International Journal of Scientific &
Engineering Research. 2(8). pp. 1-7.
[4] Avery, G., & Cameron, F. (1998), Journal of Managerial Sciences Volume IX Number 1 83
[5] Sarangi, S., & Srivastava, R. K. (2012), Impact of organizational culture and
communication on employee engagement.
[6] Matamala, A. C., Pace, V. L., & Thometz, H. (2010), Work engagement as a mediator
between personality and citizenship behaviour, Journal of Managerial Sciences Volume IX
Number 1 88
[7] Babcock-Roberson, M. E., & Strickland, O. J. (2010), The Enlargement of the European
Union (Vol. 1). Burns & Oates
[8] LePine, J. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Erez, A. (2000), Human Relations, Psychological
presence at work. Human Relations. 45(4). pp. 321-349.
[9] Ewing and Smith, (2003), The beliefs that teachers work engagement is a factor of
students achievement, Journal in schools of Nigeria volume X Number 1 83
[10] A. Bakker & W. Schaufeli. Positive Organizational Behavior: Engaged Employee in
Flourishing Organization, Journal of Organization Behavior, (29) Pp. 60-64, 2008
[11] Brookhart, S.M. and D.J. Freeman, (1992). Characteristics of entering teacher candidates.
Rev. Educational Res., 62: 37-60
[12] Ewing, R.A. and D.L. Smith, (2003) Retaining quality beginning teachers in the
profession Journal in English Teaching: Practice Critique, 2: 15-32.
[13] Bakker, Arnold B.; Hakanen, Jari J.; Demerouti, Evangelia; Xanthopoulou, (May 2007),
Despoina Journal of Educational Psychology, v99 n2 p274-284
[14] (Green & Rogers, 1997), the impact of business mentoring suggesting a positive link
with attainment at 16 25, 34-36
[15] February 2007, Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement Journal of
Vocational Behaviour - A longitudinal study Volume 70, Issue 1, Pages 149171.
[16] AIR UK, 2008; Bartlett, 2009; Gillie, 2012, The drivers of employee engagement. ReportInstitute for Employment Studies.
[17] Johnsrud and Rosser (1999) Employee engagement in business environment- journal of

Employee engagement and importance of business environment.


[18] Ofsted, 2007, Journal of young apprentices have gained employment as a result of
successful work placements.
[19] Balarin et al., 2008, The school governance study carried out by the University of Bath
Volunteering activities-:60).
[ 2 0 ] Bakker, A.B., J.J. Hakanen, E. Demerouti and D. Xanthopoulou, 2007. Job resources
boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. J. Educational Psychol., 99:
274-284.