Jain University Bharathraj Shetty A K (Phdaug2011-93)

JAIN UNIVERSITY B H AR AT H R AJ S H E T T Y A K ( P H D AU G 2 0 1 1 - 9 3 )
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS
The present survey aims to study Employee Engagement among middle level managers in
the automobile sector, covering manufacturing and service organizations located in and
around Bangalore. In order to facilitate flow, connectivity and logical treatment this chapter
is divided into following sub chapters:
4.1: Demographic profile.
4.2: Drivers of engagement.
4.3: Physical and Psychological factors.
4.4: Job enrichment factors towards engagement
4.5: Relationship between engagement and retention
4.6: Role of middle level managers in organization
4.7: Overall engagement and retention
4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Education, Age Occupation Income Level, Profession, Marital
Status are all examples of demographics. Demographics are characteristics of a population.
Under the survey design, in order to assess who to survey and how to break down overall
response data of the survey into meaningful groups of respondents, demographic profile has
been considered. The details of demographic profile, including analysis are detailed in this
chapter.
Three hundred and ten numbers of respondents in middle managerial level, from the
Automobile sector, are taken as the sample of the study. Analysis related to demographic
profile of the respondents is summarized below.
Table 4.1: Industry type

Company Frequency Percent
Manufacturing 96 31.0
Services 214 69.0
Total 310 100.0
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 74

This figure shows that 69% of respondents belongs to the service sector and remaining 31%
belongs to Manufacturing Sector for the study. Middle managers in the surveyed
organizations under service area are found in greater numbers when compared to
manufacturing. Concentration of middle managers are actually found more and response
rate, is higher.
Figure 4.1: Pie chart for Industry wise
Respondents as per wise Sectorwise
31%
Manufacturing
69% Services
The table 4.2 shows that 35.2% of respondents belongs to the Assistant Manager level,
followed by Deputy managers and Managers with 23.9 and 23.5% respectively. Senior
managers and AGM level respondents are less in number. Least, 2.9% belongs to DGM,
level position.
Table 4.2: Designation of respondents
Designation Frequency Percent
Assistant Manager 109 35.2
Deputy Manager 74 `23.9
Manager 73 23.5
Senior Manager 30 9.7
AGM 15 4.8
DGM 9 2.9
Total 310 100.0

This figure 4.2 shows that the 109 respondents belong to the assistant manager level and
least 9 respondents belong to DGM level.
Figure 4.2: Bar chart for Designation of the respondents.
Respondents as per Designation wise

DGM 9
AGM 15
Senior Manager 30
Manager 73
Deputy Manager 74
Assistant Manager 109
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Frequency distribution shows that 12.9% of the respondents are in the younger age group of
25 -29 years. Further 24.8% of the respondents fall in the age group of 30-34. However,
29.7% of respondents belongs to the 35-39 age group, which shows highest percentage
distribution, followed by age group between 40-44, with 19.4%. Respondents in the age
group of 45 -49 occupy 9.7%, of the distribution and a meagre 1-9%, in the age group of 50-
54. 1% of the respondents are found in the age group of 55-59. Least 0.6% belong to higher
age of group of 59 years and above.
Table 4.3: Age of the Respondents
Age Frequency Percent
25-29 40 12.9
30-34 77 24.8
35-39 92 29.7
40-44 60 19.4
45-49 30 9.7
50-54 6 1.9
55-59 3 1.0
above 59 2 0.6
Total 310 100.0

Figure 4.3: pie chart for age of the respondents
Respondents as per age wise

1.9% 1% 0.6%
25-29
9.7% 12.9% 30-34
19.4% 24.8% 35-39
40-44
29.7% 45-49
50-54
55-59
The table 4.4 shows that 88.4% of respondents belong to the male category and 11.6% of
respondents belongs to female category.
Table 4.4: Gender of Respondents
Gender Frequency Percent
Male 274 88.4

Female 36 11.6
Total 310 100.0
The figure 4.4 shows the pattern of distribution indicates dominance of Male employees over
female employees. However, this could be due to the very nature of auto industry, being
strenuous and challenging work environment, and as such automobile manufacturing and
service sector may not attract more number of female employees.
Figure 4.4: Bar chart shows gender of the respondents
Respondents as per Gender

88.4%
100
11.6%
0
Male Female

The table 4.5 shows that 84.5% of respondents belong to Married category and least 0.3%
are divorced.
Table 4.5: Marital status of Respondents
Marital status Frequency Percent
Married 262 84.5

Unmarried 47 15.2
Divorced 1 0.3
Total 310 100.0
The figure 4.5 shows Majority of the respondent are married and the only 15.2 percentage
0f respondents are unmarried. Least of 0 .3, percent are divorces.
Figure 4.5: Bar chart for Marital status of the respondents
Respondents as per Marital status
84.5%
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
15.2%
20
10 0.3%
0
Married Unmarried Divorced

The table 4.6 shows that 40% of respondents belongs to the 2-4 lakhs income level, followed
by 30% of the respondents earning between 4-6 lakhs. Least 1% belongs to below 2 lakhs
income level. Only 8.7% respondents earn high income.
Table 4.6: Income of respondents
Income Frequency Percent
Below 2lakhs 3 1.0
2-4 lakhs 124 40.0

4-6 lakhs 93 30.0
6-8 lakhs 46 14.8
8-10 lakhs 17 5.5
10 lakhs and above 27 8.7

Total 310 100.0
From the figure 4.6, it can be inferred that respondents in the automobile sector earn
moderate income. This is an indicator that the Employers of automobile sector in spite of
growth are not great pay masters
Figure 4.6: Bar chart for Income of the respondents
Respondents as per Annual Income

40%
40
30%
30
20 14.8%
8.7%
10 5.5%
1%
0
Below 2-4 lakhs 4-6 lakhs 6-8 lakhs 8-10 lakhs 10 lakhs and
2lakhs above

The table 4.7 shows that, majority of the respondents are having Diploma and Graduation as
their qualification, and highly qualified employees are moderate, this could be the reason as
to the low pay packages as recorded in the table 4.6. All in all, it can be said that the
distribution demonstrates that the sample in this study is generally well educated.
Table 4.7: Qualification of Respondents
Qualification Number of respondents Percent
Diploma 127 41.0

Bachelor Degree 163 52.6
Post Graduate 64 20.6
Ph.D. and others 7 2.3
B.E/B.tech 49 15.8
M.E/M.Tech 5 1.6
CA/CS 3 1.0
PGDM 1 0.3
The figure 4.7 shows that 52.6 % of respondents belongs to the Bachelor’s Degree, followed
by diploma holders with 41%. Post graduates are with 21% and engineering graduates are
around 16%. And least 0.3% belong to PGDM qualification.
Figure 4.7: Bar chart for the Qualification of the respondents.
Respondents as per Qualification wise

100
52.6%
41%
50 20.6% 15.8%
2.3% 1.6% 1% 0.3%
0

The study shows that 90.6% of respondents are involved in day to day operations. 71% of
respondents are with Department coordination. Further 69.7% are responsible for functional
areas. Respondents engaged in supporting and motivational activities are, 45.8 %.
As far as the job responsibilities are concerned, it is to be noted that majority of the
employees are involved in operations and responsible for results, followed by departmental
coordination, providing motivational support to the subordinates. This trend of Job profile
indicates that, all in all these middle managers are task oriented and also inclined towards
creating a motivational work environment, in discharging their responsibilities
Table 4.8: Job responsibilities of the respondents

Job responsibilities Number of respondents Percent
Operations & Results 281 90.6

Dept. Coordination 221 71.3
Functional Areas 216 69.7
Motivational support 142 45.8
Any Other 1 0.3
Table 4.9: Respondents as per Department wise.

Department No of respondents Percent
Human Resource 23 7.4

Finance 37 11.9
Marketing 8 2.6
Stores 18 5.8
Production 40 12.9
Sales 67 21.6
Customer care 22 7.1
Body shop 18 5.8
Service 47 15.2
Others 10 3.2

purchase 5 1.6
operations 4 1.3
IT 4 1.3
ERM 4 1.3
Training 3 1.0
Total 310 100.0
The figure 4.8 bar chart shows 21.6%of respondents belongs to the sales department,
followed by service department and production and finance department with 15.2%, 12.9%
and 11.9% respectively. Least of 1% belongs to Training department.
The study shows that heavy concentration of employees in few of the department is not seen,
but overall fairly distributed over several departments, however respondents belonging to
the sales department is highest followed by service, and later third place is occupied by the
production department, This observation is in line with the sample population were more
number of employees are working in sales and service followed by manufacturing, Also it
is to be noted that, respondents working in training department is being least, again is an
indication that automobile sector has neglected importance of establishing training
department
Figure 4.8: Bar chart for respondents as per Department wise.
Respondents as per Department

25 21.6%
20 15.2%
11.9% 12.9%
15
10 7.4% 5.8% 7.1% 5.8%
2.6% 3.2% 1.6%
5 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1%
0

Distribution of Younger middle level managers and senior middle level managers as per age
of the respondents shown in figure 4.9. The pie chart with respect to age of the respondents
shows 62.3% of respondents come under Senior Middle Level Mangers and 37.7% belongs
to Younger Middle level managers.
Figure 4.9: Pie chart for YML and SML mangers as per age.
Age Distribution for YML and SML Mangers
37.7%
62.3% YML
SML
YMLM=25-34 Yrs
SMLM=35-60 Yrs
The table 4.10 shows the degree of engagement among SML and YML in the middle
managerial levels. Also based on percentage analysis, SML are more engaged with each
engagement variables taken for the study as compared to YML.
Table 4.10: Degree of Engagement among SML and YML Mangers

Statements of engagement variables YML(%) SML(%)
A It is with lot of pride, I work for my 37.10 60.00
company
B I would recommend my company to others 34.19 48.06
as a great place to work
C I show care and concern for the future of my 35.81 59.03
company

D I would strongly recommend to my relatives 31.94 54.19

,friends and acquaintances that they do
business with my company
E I would be going extra mile to discharge my 34.84 57.42
duties for the company
F I would like to continue to work in the 19.35 45.48
company for the rest of my life
G I consider my company’s problems as my 21.61 46.77
own
H I attach great respect to my company and its 37.74 59.35
employees
I Even if it is to my advantage, I feel that I 18.71 41.61
should not leave my company
J I feel that I am emotionally attached to my 22.26 47.74

company
From the figure 4.10 it can be noted that in all the engagement statements, the survey
responses display less engagement among younger middle level managers. Example-For the
question “It is with lot of pride, I work for the company” was analysed by classifying
strongly disagree and dis agree as “disengaged” and strongly agree and agree are taken as
“engaged” (five point Likert scale is used). Higher percentage indicate higher level of
engagement.
It is inferred from the graph that the young middle level managers are found to be less
engaged when compared to their senior middle level managers. This is also true from earlier
research findings indicating that younger aged managers are not highly engaged worldwide.
This could be due to the ambitious nature of younger generation who generally would like
to have more autonomy in their job tasks, whereas initially they may not be delated
challenging job and tasks, which instead would be dealt by their senior colleagues.

Figure 4.10: Bar chart for comparison of degree of engagement between YML and SML
Managers
COMPARISION OF DEGREEE OF ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN YML AND SML MANAGERS

60.00% 59.03% 59.35%
57.42%
60.00 54.19%
48.06% 47.74%
50.00 45.48% 46.77%
41.61%
37.10% 37.74%
40.00 34.19% 35.81% 34.84%
YML
31.94%
30.00 SML
21.61% 22.26%
19.35% 18.71%
20.00
10.00
0.00
A B C D E F G H I J
ENGAGEMENT VARIABLES
The table 4.11 shows that overall engagement among SML and YML managers of the
organization under study. The analysis shows that on an average 29.35% of YML are less
engaged as compared to the average of 51.97% of SML managers.
Table 4.11: Overall Engagement among SML and YML Managers

Engagement variables SML YML
Overall Engagement 51.97% 29.35%
Testing of Hypothesis
The significance of degree of engagement among SML and YML managers is tested with
the z-test and the results are summarized as follows.
Objective-1: To Study the influence of demographic profile (age) on employee

engagement
Ho1: There is no difference in Employee Engagement between younger and senior middle
level managers

Ha1: The younger Middle Level Managers are less engaged than Senior Middle level
Managers
The above hypothesis is tested with the help of Z-test which shows statistical significance at
1% and 5 % level of significance. The results are summarized as below.
Table 4.12: Distribution of YML &SML managers for Z-test.

A B C D E F G H I J
YML 115 106 111 99 108 109 60 117 58 69
SML 193 188 188 174 183 145 150 189 135 155
The Z-test results are summarized below.
Computed Z-Statistic Z-Table value Decision

7.44 1.96 (at 5% Los) Null Hypothesis is Rejected.
2.58(at 1% Los)
The analysis shows that the computed Z value is more than the table value and the statistical
significance at 5% as well as 1% level of significance indicating younger aged middle level
managers are less engaged than senior middle level managers. Null Hypothesis stands
rejected, establishing less engagement for younger middle managers against senior middle
level managers.
The table 4.13 shows that 48.4% of respondents changed their organization with the
frequency of 1-2 times. Further 22.3% respondents never changed their jobs and 5.5% of
respondents changed their organizations for about 5-6 times.
Table 4.13: No of changes in jobs of respondents

Times Number Percent
No changes 69 22.3
1-2 150 48.4
3-4 74 23.9

5-6 17 5.5
Total 310 100
From the figure 4.11 we see that 48.4% of respondents changed their organization with the
frequency of 1-2 times. Further 22.3% respondents never changed their jobs and 5.5% of
respondents changed their organizations for about 5-6 times. Finally, it can be inferred that
most of the respondents are not job hopping type. The frequency of changes is moderate,
which is a good sign for any organization in terms of employee attrition.
Figure 4.11: Bar chart for Job changes of the respondents
Respondents as per No of Job changes

48.4%
50
40
30 22.3% 23.9%
20
5.5%
10
0
No changes 1-2 3-4 5-6
The table 4.14 shows the 53.2% of respondents belongs to the 10-20 years of experience,
followed by respondents between 0-10, and 20-30 years with 23.2% and 21.3%. Least 2.3%
of respondents are having 30-40 years of experience.
Table 4.14: Total Experience of Respondents

Years Number Percent
0-10 72 23.2
10-20 165 53.2
20-30 66 21.3
30-40 7 2.3

Total 310 100
Figure 4.12 shows the 53.2% of respondents belong to the 10-20 years of experience,
followed by respondents between 0-10, and 20-30 years with 23.2% and 21.3%. Least 2.3%
of respondents are having 30-40 years of experience. The distribution of experienced
workers shows that the surveyed organization has got employees with vast experience, in
their relevant field
Figure 4.12: Bar chart for Total experience of the Respondents
Respondents as per Total experiance
53.2%
60
50
40
23.2% 21.3%
30
20
2.3%
10
0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40
The table 4.15 shows 75.8% of respondents are belongs to 0-5 years are staying in same post,
followed by respondents having 5-10 years, with18.4% and least 0.6% belongs to 15-20
years are staying in same post. This indicates that majority of the respondents (middle level
managers) have good number of year of experience in their managerial position, which
augers well for any organization for creating an environment of engagement by, guiding and
mentoring their subordinates.
Table 4.15: Years of experience in Present post of respondents
0-5 235 75.8

5-10 57 18.4
10-15 16 5.2
15-20 2 0.6
Total 310 100

The table 4.16 shows the 54.8% of respondents belongs to the 0-10 years are working in
same organization followed by respondents, having work experience between 10-20 years
and 20-30 years around 38.4% and 6.2% respectively also least 0.6% of the Respondents is
with 30- 40 years of work experience in the same organization.
Table 4.16: Work Experience in Present Organization

0-10 170 54.8

10-20 119 38.4
20-30 19 6.2
30-40 2 0.6
Total 310 100
Figure 4.13 shows the 54.8% of respondents belongs to the 0-10 years are working in same
organization followed by respondents, having work experience between 10-20 years and 20-
30 years around 38.4% and 6.2% respectively also least 0.6% of the Respondents is with 30-
40 years of work experience in the same organization. The study shows that majority of the
respondents are possessing good experience and are working for several years in the same
organization. The inference which can be drawn from the above diagram is that the surveyed
organizations have got employees with good number of years of experience, who remained
loyal to the organization. Which also can be an indicator towards employee engagement and
thereby employee retention.
Figure 4.13: Bar chart for years of experience in Present organization.

54.8%
60
38.4%
40
20 6.2%
0.6%
0
0-10 10-20 20-30 30-40
Table 4.17 shows that in general, most of the engagement variables have an influence over
experience as independent variable. However, the employees who are with experience of 0
to10 years show more engagement in comparison to employees with experience between 10
to 20 years.
Table 4.17: Years of work experience in present organization and Engagement.
Engagement Degree of Engagement Work Experience Total
Variables 0-10 Yrs 10-20 Yrs
Engaged 92.90 5.81 98.71
A Neutral 0.97 0.00 0.97
Dis Engaged 0.32 0.00 0.32
Total 100.00
Engaged 87.74 5.81 93.55
B Neutral 6.13 0.00 6.13
Dis Engaged 0.32 0.00 0.32
Total 100.00
Engaged 90.65 5.81 96.45
C Neutral 3.23 0.00 3.23
Dis Engaged 0.00 0.32 0.32
Total 100.00
Engaged 83.23 4.84 88.06
D Neutral 8.39 0.32 8.71
Dis Engaged 2.58 0.65 3.23
Total 100.00
Engaged 88.71 5.16 93.87

E Neutral 4.84 0.65 5.48

Dis Engaged 0.65 0.00 0.65
Total 100.00
Engaged 60.97 5.48 66.45
F Neutral 28.39 0.65 29.03
Dis Engaged 4.52 0.00 4.52
Total 100.00
Engaged 66.45 2.90 69.35
G Neutral 23.55 2.26 25.81
Dis Engaged 4.84 0.00 4.84
Total 100.00
Engaged 92.90 5.81 98.71
H Neutral 0.00 0.00 0.00
Dis Engaged 1.29 0.00 1.29
Total 100.00
Engaged 58.39 3.23 61.61
I Neutral 30.00 1.94 31.94
Dis Engaged 6.13 0.32 6.45
Total 100.00
Engaged 66.13 5.48 71.61
J Neutral 22.58 0.00 22.58
Dis Engaged 5.48 0.32 5.81
Total 100.00
To study the influence of years of experience in the present organization and the employee
engagement for the variables taken under the study is done with regression analysis as per
following summary of results discussed below.
Objective 1: To study the influence of demographic profile (years of experience) on
employee engagement
Ho2: There is no significant influence of years of experience on Employee Engagement.
Ha2: There is a significant influence of years of experience on Employee engagement.

The above hypothesis is tested with the Regression Model given by

E(Y) =Years of experience(X) +C
Where, engagement is taken as dependent variable and years of experience in present
organization as Independent variable.
No. Engagement Variables R F- P- Significance
statistic Value
A Lot of pride to work for the company 0.16 8.055 0.005 Significant
@ 1 % los
B Recommend the company as a great 0.413 6.416 0.012 Significant
place to work @ 1 % los
C Show care and concern for the company 0.113 3.976 0.047 Significant
@ 5 % los
D Recommend to relatives and friends to 0.139 6.08 0.014 Significant
do business with the company @ 1 % los
E Going the extra mile to discharge duties 0.098 2.977 0.085 Significant
@ 10 % los
F Would o continue to work in the 0.221 15.812 0.000 Significant
company for the rest of life @ 1 % los
G Consider company’s problems as own 0.132 5.46 0.020 Significant
problems. @ 1 % los
H Attach respect to the company and its 0.111 3.824 0.051 Significant
employees @ 5 % los
I Should not leave the company for own 0.208 13.858 0.000 Significant
advantage. @ 1 % los
J Emotionally attached to the company 0.221 15.772 0.000 Significant
@ 1 % los
In the above regression model, F-test shows statistical significance. The engagement
variables pride to work, recommendation of company to others as a great place, recommend
to relatives to do business, continue to work for rest of life, emotional attachment and not

leaving the company shows significant at 1% los. This indicates a strong effect of these
variables on the engagement of the organization. Also the engagement variables showing
concern for future of the company, going extra mile with discharge duties, considering
problems of the company as own and attachment with respect to employees and company
shows statistical significance at 5% los. This indicates high level of engagement to the
company and with the work.
Overall regression model results show that years of experience with the present organization
influences, employee engagement. The null hypothesis stands rejected.
4.2 DRIVERS OF ENGAGEMENT

When it comes to understanding employee engagement, the drivers of engagement could be
a great starting point. It is essential to look into the individual employee’ needs and also the
organizational context to understand what the driving behaviours are and corresponding key
motivating factors for an employee to become engaged. Learning about what motivates
employees and what factors drive them towards engagement will contribute greatly towards
improving our understanding of employee engagement. The present study takes into account
various studies on motivational theories and lists 15 factors which are shown by the literature
review to influence employee engagement, as driving factors.
The present study, examines these fifteen factors as drivers for engagement. Respondents of
selected automobile companies are asked to show their preference and rank multiple options
on the survey. Through the survey, employees identified several factors which are given top
ranking and least ranking. Below table states the preferred drivers that would play a
significant role in establishing an environment of employee engagement.
The present study lists drivers of engagement as a second objective, the study aims to
understand and prioritize the drivers of employee engagement. In order to achieve this
objective, the questionnaire was developed looking into various factors which are said to
influence and motivate the employees towards engagement and involvement. The literature
survey looks into global engagement drivers accordingly fifteen factors are listed and
incorporated in the questionnaire, for the survey. To find out the priority, Friedman’s test
was carried out in the analysis process.
Ranking and Association of Drivers of Engagement

The respondents are asked to give ranks and show their priority as to among the listed fifteen
drivers of engagement which factors they would select and rank these factors from 15 to 1,
the rank fifteen is highest and rank 1 as lowest. The respondents were instructed to rank all
the fifteen Drivers and not to rank the same Driver twice. The list of these drivers as per
questionnaire is given below:
Table 4.18: Rank Format of Drivers of engagement

Drivers for engagement Rank (1-15)
Pay and benefits
Opportunity for career growth and advancement
Challenging work and decision making authority
Working environment
Flexible working hours
Good HR practices
Reputation/Image of the company
Reward and recognition by the company
Relationship with colleagues
Relationship with superior
Company policy

Physical fitness
Mental resilience --psychological and emotional readiness
Job security
Relationship with subordinates
In order to get the convergence towards priority of the Drivers of engagement,” Friedman
Test for mean rank” was done. This is a non –parametric test, alternative to ANNOVA.
The results are summarized as below-
Friedman test:
Table 4.19: Friedman Test Ranks for Drivers of engagement.
DRIVERS OF ENGAGEMENT RANKS
Mean Rank Ranks with priority
Pay and Benefits 13.55 1st
Opportunity for Career Growth 13.35 2nd
Challenging work and Decision Making Authority 12.58 3rd
Working Environment 8.75 6th
Flexible Working Hours 4.36 14th
Good HR Practices 7.89 7th
Reputation of the company 8.79 5th
Reward and Recognition by the company 7.85 8th
Relationship with colleagues 6.15 10th
Relationship with superior 7.13 9th
Company Policy 4.05 15th
Physical Fitness 5.02 12th
Mental Resilience 5.74 11th
Job security 9.95 4th
Relationship with subordinates 4.85 13th

Testing of Hypothesis:
Objective 2: To understand and prioritize the drivers of employee engagement
Ho3: there is no significant difference in the mean ranking of drivers of engagement
Ha3: there is a significant difference in the mean ranking of drivers of engagement
To test the significance of mean ranking for the drivers of engagement, which is measured
in ordinal scale, Chi square test criteria is taken for the decision making and the results are
summarized below
Table 4.20: Fried man test results for Drivers of Engagement.

Sample size N=310
Chi Square statistics 2206.052
Degrees of freedom -df 14
p- value 0.000
Significance @1%los
Table 4.20 Friedman test shows statistical significance, indicating there is a significant
difference in the mean ranks for the drivers of engagement, which in turn establishes priority.
Driver Identification as per Ranking:
“Pay and benefits”, with mean rank 13.55, ranks first. It indicates the importance of
compensation package to the managerial level.
“Opportunity for career growth and advancements”, having mean rank 13.35 is the second
top ranked driving factor, the respondents view this driver as the second after pay and
benefits, indicating that managerial employees want to climb the corporate ladder with career
growth.
Further “challenging work & decision making authority” with mean rank of 12.58, secures
the third rank in priority, this ranking indicates that it is the work itself, that serves as an
important element which when backed by challenges and autonomy of decision-making will
serve as a motivating factor in the working life of an employee.

“Job security”, is the fourth rank with mean rank of 9.95. Job security is that driver probably
when an employee feels that the job is a secure one and there is no threat of losing the job
will drive him to give his best and motivate individual employee.
Fifth rank is the driving factor “Reputation of the company”, with mean rank of 8.79, which
indicates that the Respondents view organization with great image.
Sixth driver is “working environment” having mean rank of 8.75. Better physical
surroundings, safe work environment where an employee operates could be deciding factor
towards creating employee engagement
The seventh important driver identified in the survey is “Good HR practices”, with mean
rank of 7.89. This finding throws light on the importance of HR department and HR policies
and practices
“Reward and Recognition by the company”, comes in the eighth place in the ranking, with
mean rank of 7.85. Employee expectations towards Reward and recognition from the
organizations will act as one of the drivers of engagement, as Rewarding and Recognizing
the efforts of managers could act as positive reinforcement towards good performance
Next driving factor, which could motivate the managers, occupying Ninth place in the
ranking order is “Relationship with superior”, with mean rank of 7.13 these respondents are
of the opinion that relationship with superiors will be a driving factor in having engagement.
The tenth driver towards engagement is “Relationship with colleagues” having mean rank
of 6.15. These findings indicate that the relationship with colleagues could inspire the
managers in their move towards engagement
The remaining other factors, Mental resilience, (mean rank of 5.74) Physical fitness, (having
mean rank of 5.02), relationship with subordinates (with mean rank of 4.85), Flexible
working hours with mean rank of 4.36 and company policy (with mean rank 4.05) takes
eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth and fifteenth place in influencing managerial
engagement, in the respondent organizations
Based on the significant findings from the survey the researcher developed a model, as
below:

Employee Engagement Model-with Drivers
Drivers
Pay and Benefits (PB)

Opportunity for Career Growth &
Advancement (OCG),
Challenging work &decision making
authority (CWDMA)
Job Security (JS)
Reputation of the Company (RC),
Working Environment (WE),
Good HR practices (GHRP
Employee
Reward & Recognition (RR), Involvement
Engagement
and
Relationship with superiors (RWS) Commitment
Relationship with colleagues (RWC)
Mental resilience (MR)
Physical Fitness
Relationship with subordinates
(RWSB)
Flexible working hours (FWH)
Company policy (CP),
The first five top ranked drivers, as identified by the middle level managers of respondent
automobile organizations are, pay and benefits, opportunity for career growth, challenging
work & decision making authority, job security and Reputation of the company. The least
prioritized drivers are company policy and flexible working hours.
As per the literature review, all over the world top ranking driver is opportunity for career
growth and advancement. Present study identifies Pay and Benefits as top ranking driver of
employee engagement. This finding indicates that money as a motivating factor is above the

opportunity for career growth. This finding is not similar to global findings. Money as a
motivating factor is found to be significant, in the present study.
The surveyed organizations findings indicated that the salary paid to the middle level
managers are not on the higher side; as such this priority reflects the mind set of middle level
managers towards their compensation and benefits. This finding is an indication to the HR
and top management that their policy regarding pay and benefits needs to be taken care of.
The third top driver said to have an impact on employee engagement is challenging work
and Decision Making Authority. This finding is significant as middle level managers to a
considerable extent exercise responsibility and accountability in their job. They also handle
critical work situations calling for immediate decisions. This ranking is in line with the
survey finding about the connected variable of job enrichment, wherein the job with
challenges could be leading to employee engagement.
The fourth ranked driver is that of Job security. Middle level managers considered this as
important which indicated that a secured job with no threat would act as driving factor. This
observation gains significance when looked into modern day uncertainty in the continuance
of jobs with issuance of pink slips and downsizing work force.
The fifth rank is Reputation of the company, indicating that the Respondents view
organization with a great image, it can be inferred that employees working in great
organizations sufficiently acts as a motivating factor.
As far as lowest ranks are concerned the respondents have assigned least rank to Company
policy, and Flexible working hours, indicating that these variables may not motivate
significantly when prioritized with major drivers as identified above.
4.3 PHYISICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS TOWARDS

ENGAGEMENT.
According to numerous studies, people who work out and exercise have better physical
health and are more productive and happier. Studies show that employees who engage in
regular physical activity perform better at their jobs; both in terms of the quality and quantity
of work performed. Thus improving an organization’ productivity. The studies found that
when employees get more physical activity, work performance gets a boost. Physically fit
workers are likely physically stronger and have greater endurance, and are less likely to feel
fatigued.

Researchers at the University of Toronto and the University of Guelph reported that
employee engagement is an integral component of managing performance, and that efforts
to help workers become more invested in their jobs is key in staff retention. The team of
scientists identified three psychological conditions that may encourage employee
engagement.
First, they said that employees who are made to feel that the work they do is valued by the
organization are more likely to be engaged in their job.
Next, the researchers noted that safety is important in employee engagement.
Lastly, psychological availability, or the characteristic of having the physical, emotional and
mental resources to do a job, is essential to staff dedication.
The current study hypothesizes that physical fitness and mental resilience are required to
have engagement. The results of the survey are discussed below:
From the table 4.21 it is found that maximum respondents taken for the survey with
physically fit to discharge the assigned duties in the organization. However, out of the 310
respondents, 212 (68%) of the respondents are regularly work out to keep them physically
fit.
Table 4.21: physical aspects for employee engagement (Physical Fitness)

Physical Aspects Neutra Physicall Total
Physically l y not fit
fit
Are you tired at the start of the day 301 07 02 310
I feel physically strong to do the job 300 6 4 310
I feel tired before the working day comes to a 275 27 8 310
close.
I can continue to work for longer periods 237 39 34 310
without being physically tired
I do work out to keep myself physically fit 212 12 86 310
The analysis of table 4.22 throws light on the physical fitness of the respondents. For the
question “Are you tired at the start of the day”, the mean score is 1.3, indicating that the

employees are not tired as the Mean variation is less. in a scale of 1 to 5. Respondents when
asked whether they are “physically strong to do the job”, the response with mean value of
4.6, indicates that these managers are physically fit as the variation is very much
insignificant.
For the question “I can continue to work for longer periods without being physically tired,”
mean values are almost equal to 4.0 indicating employees are having more physical strength
and energy to work for longer hours for the day without getting physically tired.
Again when asked about “doing work out to keep themselves physically fit, the mean
response rate is 3.6, indicating the employees are having the habit of work out and physical
exercise.
Table 4.22: Mean and Standard Deviation for physical aspects.

Variabl Physical Aspects Mean SD
e No.
a1 Are you tired at the start of the day 1.3 0.59
b1 I feel physically strong to do the job 4.6 0.65
c1 I feel tired before the working day comes to a close. 1.7 0.98
d1 I can continue to work for longer periods without being 4.0 0.99
physically tired
e1 I do work out to keep myself physically fit 3.6 1.24
The chi-square test is applied with hypothesis to examine the relationship between physical
factors and engagement variables taken in the study. The results are summarized below.
Objective 3-To analyze physical, psychological influencing employee engagement
Ho4: There is no relationship between Physical Fitness and Employee Engagement.
Ha4: There is a relationship between Physical Fitness and Employee Engagement.

DOE A B C D E F G H I J
PF
a1 Chi-Square 9.098 25.616 18.925 23.259 11.437 73.598 19.479 19.434 15.051 64.018
df 9 9 9 15 12 12 12 6 15 12
P-value 0.428 0.002 0.026 0.079 0.492 0.000 0.078 0.003 0.448 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
b1 Chi-Square 29.406 45.795 89.161 20.431 73.943 43.651 41.749 69.155 24.733 38.81
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.431 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.212 0.001
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
c1 Chi-Square 30.433 10.608 22.361 364.949 77.521 19.735 6.709 7.719 319.567 134.069
df 15 15 15 25 20 20 20 10 25 20
P-value 0.010 0.780 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.475 0.998 0.656 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
d1 Chi-Square 22.726 68.007 31.202 44.642 64.753 60.434 36.098 44.0.093 42.378 61.792
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.030 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.002 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
e1 Chi-Square 27.628 46.758 43.488 39.244 34.928 46.41 42.398 32.137 43.647 40.92
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
The chi square test results show that physical aspects variable a1 is not significant with
engagement variable A: With lot of pride working for the company, E: Going extra mile to
discharge the duties for the company and I: Not leaving the company even if for the own
advantage. P-value greater than 0.05 los indicates there is no relationship of physical aspect
(physically tired in the beginning of the day) engagement variables A: With lot of pride
working for the company, E: Going extra mile to discharge the duties for the company and
I: Not leaving the company even if for the own advantage.
Also physical aspect b1: physically strong to do job is not significant with engagement
variable D: Strongly recommending to friends and relatives to do business with the company
and I: Not leaving the company even if for the own advantage. as P value > 0.05 los indicates
there is no relationship of physical aspect (physically strong in the beginning of the day
engagement variables D: Strongly recommending to friends and relatives to do business with
the company and I: Not leaving the company even if for the own advantage.
Physical aspect variable c1: physically tired at the end of the day shows not significant with
the engagement variables B: Recommending the company to others as a great place to work,
F: Continue to work in the company for rest of the life, G: Considering company’s
problems as own problems and H: Attaching great respect to the company and employees,
as P-value >0.05 los shows there is no relationship between physical aspect variable c1:

physically tired at the end of the day and Engagement variables B: Recommending the
company to others as a great place to work, F: Continue to work in the company for rest
of the life, G: Considering company’s problems as own problems and H: Attaching great
respect to the company and employees , which indicates employees are exhausted totally
with work assignments at the end of the day even as considering problems of the company
as own, recommending company to other and continuing to work for the rest of life in the
same company.
Whereas physical aspects variables d1: I can continue to work for longer periods without
being physically tired and e1: I do work out to keep myself physically fit shows statistically
significant with all the engagement variables as P-value is smaller than 0.05 los indicates the
significance of the relationship between physical aspect and engagement variables taken for
the study.
The significance of relationship between physical aspects and engagement variables from
chi square test is further taken for measuring how physical aspect variables has an impact on
engagement variables with the help of regression model against the hypothesis.
Ho5: there is no influence of Physical Fitness on Employee Engagement
Ha5: there is an influence of Physical Fitness on Employee Engagement.

Y (Engagement) =X (Physical Fitness) +C,
Engagement Variables R F-test P- Significance

Valu
e
Lot of pride to work for the company 0.236 3.595 0.004 Significant
@ 1 % los
Recommend the company as a great place to 0.317 6.813 0 Significant
work @ 1 % los
Show care and concern for the company 0.285 5.361 0 Significant
@ 1 % los

Recommend to relatives and friends to do 0.402 11.70 0 Significant

business with the company 3 @ 1 % los
Going the extra mile to discharge duties 0.26 4.391 0.001 Significant
@ 1 % los
Would o continue to work in the company for the 0.334 7.623 0 Significant
rest of life @ 1 % los
Consider company’s problems as own problems. 0.305 6.236 0 Significant
@ 1 % los
Attach respect to the company and its employees 0.331 7.47 0 Significant
@ 1 % los
Should not leave the company for own advantage. 0.472 17.40 0 Significant
6 @ 1 % los
Emotionally attached to the company 0.311 6.492 0 Significant
@ 1 % los
Regression model results shows that hypothesis taken for the study is statistically
significant at 1% los in all the cases which indicates physical aspect variables has high
level of impact towards employee engagement. The Null hypothesis is rejected in the light
of above results.
From the table 4.23, it is found that Overall Mean rating 4.4, with 67% variation from the
mean rating value shows most of the respondents are psychologically motivated in their work
and tasks.
Table 4.23: Mean and Standard Deviation of Psychological Aspects (Mental

Resilience) towards employee engagement
Variable Psychological Aspects ( Mental Resilience) Mean SD
Nos.
17.1 How often do you look forward to go to work in the 4.7 0.57
morning?
18.2 Optimistic and Inspired. 4.3 0.81

19.1 Job activities and tasks are personally meaningful and 4.3 0.53
fulfilling
19.2 The work /tasks, I do on the job is of value to me 4.4 0.54
19.4 I am willing to put extra effort and go the extra mile to help 4.7 0.49
my company succeed
19.5 I feel psychologically and emotionally attached to my job 4.8 0.74
and tasks
19.10 I am confident in handling critical situations at job 4.4 0.54
19.11 I am emotionally stable in behaving with, colleagues, 4.2 0.87
seniors and clients
20.3 I perform assigned tasks with enthusiasm and interest 4.4 0.51
20.5 My job gives me lot of inspiration and motivation 4.3 0.59
20.7 I am mentally resilient at my job 4.1 1.13
Overall Mean 4.4 0.67
The table 4.24 shows that a large number of respondents is mentally strong and are well
prepared for discharging their duties in the organization.
To examine the relationship between Psychological Factors (Mental Resilience) and degree
of engagement variables taken for the study among middle level managers of the
organization, the chi-square test is applied with the hypothesis and the results are
summarized below.
Table 4.24: Levels of Psychological Aspects (Mental Resilience) towards employee

engagement
Qn. Nos Psychological Aspects ( Mental Mentally Neutral Mentally Total
Resilience) Resilient Not
Resilient
17.1 How often do you look forward 297 10 3 310
to go to work in the morning?
17.2 How often you are not able to 270 19 21 310
complete the assigned job?

17.3 Does your job motivate you to 286 15 9 310

give your best?
17.4 How often you have felt; you 261 40 9 310
should leave the job?
18.1 Tense, Worried and Miserable 285 15 10 310
18.2 Optimistic and Inspired. 274 19 17 310
19.1 Job activities and tasks are 300 10 0 310
personally meaningful and
fulfilling
19.2 The work /tasks, I do on the job 301 8 1 310
is of value to me
The work/tasks, I do on the job 309 1 0 310
is of value and use to my
company
19.4 I am willing to put extra effort 306 4 0 310
and go the extra mile to help my
company succeed
19.5 I feel psychologically and 261 44 5 310
emotionally attached to my job
and tasks
19.10 I am confident in handling 304 5 1 310
critical situations at job
19.11 I am emotionally stable in 270 34 6 310
behaving with, colleagues,
seniors and clients
20.3 I perform assigned tasks with 306 4 0 310
enthusiasm and interest
20.5 My job gives me lot of 292 16 2 310
inspiration and motivation
20.7 I am mentally resilient at my job 261 39 10 310

Testing of Hypothesis-Chi Square test:

Ho6: There is no relationship between Mental Resilience and Degree of engagement among
middle level Managers
Ha6: There is a relationship between Mental Resilience and Degree of engagement among
middle level Managers
MR
17.1 Chi-Square 8.13 12.255 24.735 24.282 27.112 27.231 24.895 17.114 21.476 33.051
df 9 9 9 15 12 12 12 6 15 12
P-value 0.521 0.199` 0.003 0.06 0.007 0.007 0.015 0.009 0.122 0.001
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
18.2 Chi-Square 29.519 57.135 44.563 63.309 61.825 64.187 26.692 39.139 38.911 88.238
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.000 0.007 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
19.1 Chi-Square 4.43 61.814 16.734 23.001 16.834 32.308 32.375 57.711 51.795 28.367
df 6 6 6 10 8 8 8 4 10 8
P-value 0.619 0.000 0.010 0.011 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
19.2 Chi-Square 21.318 99.091 68.321 66.78 68.235 39.535 75.129 40.175 58.221 53.718
df 9 9 9 15 12 12 12 6 15 12
P-value 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
19.4 Chi-Square 16.079 39.458 59.93 25.223 53.006 44.986 38.102 27.749 26.16 28.227
df 6 6 6 10 8 8 8 4 10 8
P-value 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
19.5 Chi-Square 28.109 69.438 48.718 60.784 42.107 78.427 57.72 34.14 58.533 82.254
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
19.1 Chi-Square 2.846 34.565 23.807 18.083 26.889 27.002 58.427 42.025 30.903 63.247
df 9 9 9 15 12 12 12 6 15 12
P-value 0.970 0.000 0.005 0.258 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
19.11 Chi-Square 8.915 35.992 25.513 43.506 29.157 37.458 57.924 58.817 41.005 55.096
df 15 15 15 25 20 20 20 10 25 20
P-value 0.885 0.002 0.043 0.012 0.085 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
20.3 Chi-Square 9.234 35.859 41.754 14.47 41.559 30.364 46.852 101.763 28.27 45.209
df 6 6 6 10 8 8 8 4 10 8
P-value 0.161 0.000 0.000 0.162 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
20.5 Chi-Square 19.214 201.971 65.051 28.697 52.832 56.162 49.842 57.895 69.761 57.607
df 9 9 9 15 12 12 12 6 15 12
P-value 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
20.7 Chi-Square 13.012 39.211 48.591 103.299 81.243 61.395 61.741 50.064 105.729 57.031
df 15 15 15 25 20 20 20 10 25 20
P-value 0.601 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
The chi square test results shows Psychological factors (Mental Resilience) 17.1 is not
significant with engagement variable A: With lot of pride working for the company, B
:Recommending company to others as great place of work and I: Not leaving the company
even if it is for own advantage, since P-value is greater than 0.05 los there is no relationship
of Psychological Aspects (Mental Resilience) ( how often do you look forward to go to work
in the morning) and engagement variables A:With lot of pride working for the company, B

:Recommending company to others as great place of work and I: Not leaving the company
even if it is for own advantage.
Also Psychological Aspects (Mental Resilience)19.1: job activities and tasks are personally
meaning full is not significant with engagement variable A: With lot of pride working for
the company, as P value is greater than 0.05 los there is no relationship of Psychological
Aspects (Mental Resilience) (job activities and tasks are personally meaning full) and
engagement variables A: With lot of pride working for the company.
Psychological Aspects (Mental Resilience) variable 19.10: I am confident in handling
critical situations at job shows not significant with the engagement variables A: With lot of
pride working for the company as P-value is greater than 0.05 los, employees are not
mentally prepared to handle critical situations even though lot of pride to work for the
company.
Psychological Aspects (Mental Resilience) variable 19.11: I am emotionally stable in
behaving with colleagues, clients and seniors shows not significant with the engagement
variables A: With lot of pride working for the company as P-value is greater than 0.05 los,
employees are not consistent emotionally in their behaviour even though they work with lot
of pride for the company.
Psychological Aspects (Mental Resilience) variable 20.3: I perform assigned tasks with
enthusiasm and interest shows not significant with the engagement variables A: With lot of
pride working for the company and D: Strongly recommending to relatives and friends for
doing business with the company, as P-value is greater than 0.05 los, employees sometimes
loose interest and enthusiasm with work even though they are proud to work for the
company.
Psychological Aspects (Mental Resilience) variable 20.7: I am mentally resilient at my job
shows not significant with the only one engagement variables A: With lot of pride working
for the company as P-value is greater than 0.05 los, employees do not show mental strength
in their job despite doing their job with pride towards the company. On the other hand,
Psychological Aspects (Mental Resilience) variable 20.7: I am mentally resilient at my job
shows significance towards all other engagement variables taken for the study.
Overall, it can be said that the independent variable mental resilience as part of psychological
factor shows significance for most of the items, is indicative that middle level managers are
motivated in their job, they are optimistic and inspired, most of the time they were able to

complete their tasks, critical situations are being handled with confidence, emotionally stable
in behaving with their colleagues and subordinates.
The significance of relationship between Psychological Aspects (Mental Resilience)
variables and engagement variables from chi square test is further taken for measuring how
Psychological Aspects (Mental Resilience) variables having the impact towards engagement
variables with the help of regression model with the hypothesis is given below.
Testing of Hypothesis:
Ho7: There is no influence of Mental Resilience on Employee Engagement
Ha7: There is an influence of Mental Resilience on Employee Engagement
Y(Engagement)=X (Mental Resilience) +C, used for the study.
Degrees of engagement Independent variables R F-test P- Significance

( Dependent Variable) (Mental Resilience variables) Value
Lot of pride to work for the Q.17.1, Q.18.2, Q.(19.1,19.2, 0.395 4.986 0.000 Significant @ 1
company 19.4,19.5,19.10 and 19.11), % los
Q.(20.3,20.5 and 20.7)
Recommend the company Q.17.1, Q.18.2, Q.(19.1,19.2, 0.558 12.19 0.000 Significant @ 1
as a great place to work 19.4,19.5,19.10 and 19.11), 5 % los
Q.(20.3,20.5 and 20.7)
Show care and concern for Q.17.1, Q.18.2, Q.(19.1,19.2, 0.566 12.70 0.000 Significant @ 1
the company 19.4,19.5,19.10 and 19.11), 3 % los
Q.(20.3,20.5 and 20.7)
Recommend to relatives Q.17.1, Q.18.2, Q.(19.1,19.2, 0.383 4.163 0.000 Significant @ 1
and friends to do business 19.4,19.5,19.10 and 19.11), % los
with the company Q.(20.3,20.5 and 20.7)
Going the extra mile to Q.17.1, Q.18.2, Q.(19.1,19.2, 0.535 10.78 0.000 Significant @
discharge duties 19.4,19.5,19.10 and 19.11), 2 1% los
Q.(20.3,20.5 and 20.7)

Would o continue to work Q.17.1, Q.18.2, Q.(19.1,19.2, 0.52 9.977 0.000 Significant @ 1
in the company for the rest 19.4,19.5,19.10 and 19.11), % los
of life Q.(20.3,20.5 and 20.7)
Consider company’s Q.17.1, Q.18.2, Q.(19.1,19.2, 0.564 12.55 0.000 Significant @ 1
problems as own problems. 19.4,19.5,19.10 and 19.11), 8 % los
Q.(20.3,20.5 and 20.7)
Attach respect to the Q.17.1, Q.18.2, Q.(19.1,19.2, 0.567 12.73 0.000 Significant @ 1
company and its employees 19.4,19.5,19.10 and 19.11), 5 % los
Q.(20.3,20.5 and 20.7)
Should not leave the Q.17.1, Q.18.2, Q.(19.1,19.2, 0.443 6.559 0.000 Significant @ 1
company for own 19.4,19.5,19.10 and 19.11), % los
advantage. Q.(20.3,20.5 and 20.7)
Emotionally attached to the Q.17.1, Q.18.2, Q.(19.1,19.2, 0.5 8.974 0.000 Significant @ 1
company 19.4,19.5,19.10 and 19.11), % los
Q.(20.3,20.5 and 20.7)
Regression model result shows that hypothesis taken for the study is statistically significant
at 1% los in all the cases which indicates Psychological factors (Mental Resilience) variables
has high level of impact towards employee engagement.
The results of Regression test indicate that the Null hypothesis taken for the test gets rejected
and the test establishes that there is significant influence of Mental Resilience towards
employee engagement.
4.4 JOB ENRICHMENT FACTORS TOWARDS ENGAGEMENT

Job Enrichment:
Research studies have indicated that monotonous and boring job, with no challenge, serves
as barrier to motivation to perform well in jobs. Variety, Autonomy, task significance, job
feedback, task identity, can add challenges to a job.
It is further argued that when all these characteristics are present, in a job, it will lead to,
psychological state, wherein the employee would experience the work as meaningful, would
show personal responsibility and can perform better, if he receives timely feedback on how
he had performed the job.

For the study, above job characteristics are considered and suitable questions were
developed and administered to the respondents.
Table 4.25 shows overall mean for job enrichment variables is almost 4 indicating the
respondents level of agreement towards engagement.
Table 4.25: Mean and SD Job Enrichment Variables.
Job Enrichment Variables Mean SD
I receive adequate training and development to do 4.02 0.894
my job well
Company has a career development plan that helps 4.04 0.738
me to grow and develop my career
I have ample opportunities to develop my skills, 4.10 0.687
knowledge and attitude
I have been given appropriate level of authority to 4.13 0.639
do a good job
My organization recognizes and develops 4.20 0.649
employees talents
I receive appropriate pay and benefits for the job I 3.94 0.752
do
In the recent past I have received praise and 3.91 0.020
recognition for a job well done
In my job, and tasks I am authorized to take 3.90 0.970
decisions
For every job related aspects I need to approach 3.33 1.133
my seniors
My job provides me challenges which leads to 4.07 0.624
professional growth
My job responsibilities are clearly defined 4.12 0.591
My job provides adequate variety of tasks 4.08 0.651
I have flexibility to execute my job 4.10 0.658

Timely feedback is given to me about how I 0.775

performed the tasks 3.93
Overall mean 3.96 7.106
The analysis table 4.26, shows that majority of the respondents expressed Agree for the job
enrichment questions taken for the study.
For the question “My organization recognizes and develops employee’s talents’’, majority
of the respondents 284 (91.6%) agreed, indicating there by the organization also provides
opportunity for the employee growth.
When asked whether job responsibilities are clearly defined or not, 283 (91.2%) of the
respondents answered affirmative indicating managers are clearly aware of their roles and
responsibilities, which again brings significance to the job profile
The question related to job autonomy, “In my job, and tasks I am authorized to take
decisions”, most of the respondents, 235 (75.8%),answered that in their job they are taking
the decision and also for the most direct question on job challenges “My job provides me
challenges which leads to professional growth”, significant number of middle level
managers are agreed 272 (87.74%),these findings strengthens further that jobs with
challenges and decision making authority are what managers look for in the organization.
These findings are further strengthened by the Chi square test, where in the values of the test
establishes relationship between job enrichment factors and engagement. A job with
challenges and job with decision-making authority will make the middle level mangers
engaged. On the other hand, it can be said that jobs without challenges and routine jobs may
not motivate the middle level managers and may not lead to engagement.
Table 4.26: Job enrichment aspects and level of agreement among respondents.
Job Enrichment Variables Disagree Neutr Agr Total
al ee
I receive adequate training and development to do 11 40 259 310
my job well
Company has a career development plan that helps 11 33 266 310
me to grow and develop my career

I have ample opportunities to develop my skills, 9 23 278 310

knowledge and attitude
I have been given appropriate level of authority to 5 25 280 310
do a good job
My organization recognizes and develops 4 22 284 310
employees talents
I receive appropriate pay and benefits for the job I 8 63 239 310
do
In the recent past I have received praise and 25 48 237 310
recognition for a job well done
In my job, and tasks I am authorized to take 20 55 235 310
decisions
For every job related aspects I need to approach 79 56 175 310
my seniors
My job provides me challenges which leads to 6 32 272 310
professional growth
My job responsibilities are clearly defined 4 23 283 310
My job provides adequate variety of tasks 8 30 272 310
I have flexibility to execute my job 5 32 273 310
Timely feedback is given to me about how I 16 47 247 310
performed the tasks
How these job enrichment variables are related with engagement variables is tested using
chi square test for testing the hypothesis that there is a relationship between Job enrichment
factors and degree of engagement and results are given in the following table.
Objective 4: To look into the influence of Job enrichment on employee engagement.
Ho8: There is no relationship between Job enrichment factors and engagement variables.
Ha8: There is a relationship between Job enrichment factors and engagement variables.

JE
a Chi-Square 34.3 117.28 70.76 73.786 37.389 63.989 82.816 58.042 76.422 79.874
df 15 15 15 25 20 20 20 10 25 20
P-value 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
b Chi-Square 50.15 121.312 44.114 71.27 42.706 45.63 102.484 76.646 72.011 76.403
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
c Chi-Square 52.45 137.105 43.172 48.92 18.53 420.72 48.572 52.626 71.771 99.372
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.294 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
d Chi-Square 8.55 211.803 44.269 62.05 27.507 98.31 45.942 36.173 156.544 102.733
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.740 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
e Chi-Square 13.74 205.53 24.24 26.492 52.198 51.527 58.14 42.58 49.084 49.662
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.318 0.000 0.019 0.15 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
f Chi-Square 17.95 33.323 25.982 41.93 30.298 80.172 55.677 55.059 109.589 76.910
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.117 0.001 0.011 0.003 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
g Chi-Square 44.58 103.314 41.289 63.08 51.718 103.176 63.905 57.455 86.447 230.551
df 15 15 15 25 20 20 20 10 25 20.000
P-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
h Chi-Square 10.022 135.413 74.311 171.411 55.474 83.087 166.522 51.981 177.773 122.435
df 15 15 15 25 20 20 20 10 25 20
P-value 0.818 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
I Chi-Square 25.07 15.572 25.781 17.793 27.489 38.161 30.087 14.471 27.98 35.994
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.015 0.212 0.012 0.601 0.036 0.001 0.018 0.07 0.11 0.003
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
j Chi-Square 15 120.341 55.7 70.932 73.662 89.159 70.949 53.945 70.606 94.648
df 9 9 9 15 12 12 12 6 15 12
P-value 0.091 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
k Chi-Square 16.74 351.9 51.962 25.873 40.23 57.368 60.74 80.327 78.444 42.603
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.16 0.000 0.000 0.170 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
l Chi-Square 7.997 90.732 58.553 45.49 55.46 80.968 66.931 53.222 61.361 86.982
df 9 9 9 15 12 12 12 6 15 12
P-value 0.534 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
m Chi-Square 15.56 361.88 45.252 33.1 39.408 39.953 52.643 53.902 89.411 53.689
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.212 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
n Chi-Square 50.76 148.83 125.164 34.323 131.03 43.48 38.92 50.915 62.124 71.424
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
The chi square test results show statistical significance at 1% los indicates that job
enrichment variables related with engagement variables. To study how job enrichment
variables impacting towards employee engagement is tested with regression model with the
hypothesis given below.
H09: Job enrichment has no influence on Employee Engagement.
Ha9: The Job enrichment has influence on employee engagement.
The above hypothesis is tested with the Regression Model is given by

Y (Engagement)=X (Job enrichment) +C
Where engagement is dependent on job enrichment.

Dependent variable Independent R F- P- Significanc

(Engagement variables) variable test Valu e
(Job Enrichment e
variables)
A Lot of pride to work for the company Q.25(1,2,3,4,5,6 0.2 1.65 0.065 Significant
,7,8,9,10,11,12,1 7 2 @ 10 % los
3,14)
B Recommend the company as a great Q.25(1,2,3,4,5,6 0.4 6.60 0.000 Significant
place to work ,7,8,9,10,11,12,1 73 61 @ 1 % los
3,14)
C Show care and concern for the Q.25(1,2,3,4,5,6 0.4 5.24 0.000 Significant
company ,7,8,9,10,11,12,1 47 6 @ 1 % los
3,14)
D Recommend to relatives and friends Q.25(1,2,3,4,5,6 0.3 2.95 0.000 Significant
to do business with the company ,7,8,9,10,11,12,1 51 4 @ 1 % los
3,14)
E Going the extra mile to discharge Q.25(1,2,3,4,5,6 0.4 4.75 0.000 Significant
duties ,7,8,9,10,11,12,1 3 8 @ 1 % los
3,14)
F Would o continue to work in the Q.25(1,2,3,4,5,6 0.5 8.76 0.000 Significant
company for the rest of life ,7,8,9,10,11,12,1 43 7 @ 1 % los
3,14)
G Consider company’s problems as own Q.25(1,2,3,4,5,6 0.4 6.69 0.000 Significant
problems. ,7,8,9,10,11,12,1 92 4 @ 1 % los
3,14)
H Attach respect to the company and its Q.25(1,2,3,4,5,6 0.4 4.44 0.000 Significant
employees ,7,8,9,10,11,12,1 18 6 @ 1 % los
3,14)

I Should not leave the company for own Q.25(1,2,3,4,5,6 0.4 4.68 0.000 Significant
advantage. ,7,8,9,10,11,12,1 27 @ 1 % los
3,14)
J Emotionally attached to the company Q.25(1,2,3,4,5,6 0.5 9.11 0.000 Significant
,7,8,9,10,11,12,1 5 3 @ 1 % los
3,14)
The analysis shows that the job enrichment variables are positively correlated with the
degree of engagement. Regression model shows statistical significance job enrichment
variables are having impact towards engagement variable with respect to Question A of
engagement variables (lot of pride and work for the company) at 10% los. All other
engagement variables have impact with job enrichment variables at 1% los.
4.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ENGAGEMENT AND RETENTION

Employee Retention:
The intention to stay in the organization is of more practical significance to all types of
organization. Management develops strategies to see that employees do not quit the
organization. Talent retention is a major challenge for today’s corporates. Employee
Retention plans go a long way towards motivating the employees, so that they remain in the
organization for longer period of time and contribute significantly. Sustained efforts are
required to ensure learning and growth opportunities are provided to the employees.
It is in this background the survey attempts to study the Retention phenomena in the
automobile companies, with a view to answer questions as to whether employee engagement
is a solution to retain employees. Does employee engagement lead to employee retention?
This chapter describes the pattern of retention among middle level managers.
Table 4.27: Degree of engagement and disengagement among respondents.
Engagement variables Engaged Neutral Dis-Engaged

Lot of pride to work for the company 98.71 0.97 0.32
Recommend the company as a great place to work 93.55 6.13 0.32
Show care and concern for the company 96.45 3.23 0.32

Recommend to relatives and friends to do business 88.06 8.71 3.23

with the company
Going the extra mile to discharge duties 93.87 5.48 0.65
Would o continue to work in the company for the rest 66.13 29.35 4.52
of life
Consider company’s problems as own problems. 70.0 25.16 4.84
Attach respect to the company and its employees 98.71 1.29 -
Should not leave the company for own advantage. 62.26 31.29 6.45
Emotionally attached to the company 71.61 22.58 5.81
The table 4.27 shows percentage of respondents engaged and disengaged with various
engagement variables for the study. 98.71% respondents expressed that they work for the
company with lot of pride and attach respect to the company and its employees. Further
96.45 %, expressed that they show care and concern for the company. 93.55% of the middle
managers consider their company as great place to work, this finding reflects the mind-set
of the managers and the work culture and working environment of the respondent
organization. A significant percentage of the respondents (93.87), replied that they would go
extra mile to discharge their duties. This response shows that in the surveyed organizations
majority of the middle level managers are highly engaged. Further 88.06% of the
respondents answered that they would recommend to their relatives and friends to do
business with their organization. This finding indicates that these middle managers are
advocating for their organizations and creating good image by becoming ambassadors for
their organizations.
High level of loyalty can be noticed in the response of “Would o continue to work in the
company for the rest of life”, 66.13% of the respondents will continue to work for the
company. In the pattern of engagement 62.26% of the middle level managers felt that they
should not leave the company even if it is to their advantage.
Analysis of Mean and SD

The level of engagement, with retention variables are further analysed through analysis of
Mean and Standard deviation. The results are as below:
Table 4.28: Mean and SD of Retention Variables.

Retention variables Mean SD

Will look for new job within one year 1.89 0.862
Started thinking about leaving the company 1.89 0.812
Will come back to work again in this company. 3.85 0.867
Will not leave the company 3.85 0.816
Job provides lot of challenges both , job and my organization are 4.26 0.618
important
Analysis of above table 4.28 indicates that retention variables with Mean and SD rating show
that the respondents do not have plans to quit the organization. The first two sentences are
negatively written towards retention and as such the scales are with lower mean rating,
indicating lesser disagreement. The scale starts with from rating strongly disagree as 1 and
strongly agree as 5.
Table 4.29: Mean and SD of Engagement variables.

Degree of Engagement Mean SD
It is with lot of pride, I work for my company 4.4 0.52
I would recommend my company to others as a great place to work 4.4 0.62
I show care and concern for the future of my company 4.5 0.58
I would strongly recommend to my relatives, friends and acquaintances 4.3 0.92
that they do business with my company
I would be going the extra mile to discharge my duties for the company 4.4 0.64
I would like to continue to work in the company for the rest of my life 3.9 0.92
I consider my company’s problems as my own 4 0.91
I attach great respect to my company and its employees 4.4 0.51
Even if it is to my advantage, I feel, I should not leave my company 3.8 1.02
I feel that I am emotionally attached to my company 3.9 0.88
Mean 4.2 0.75
2
This table 4.29 shows all engagement variables has overall mean rating 4.2 which is
measured in the scale of 1-5 with standard deviation 0.752 indicates higher level of
engagement among middle level manager of the surveyed organization. On each individual

parameter also, the engagement scores are nearer to 4.0 in the scale of 5, which indicates
high level of employee engagement.
Correlation Analysis:
The following correlation matrix shows how Engagement variables are correlated among
themselves with the hypothesis and significance of correlation coefficients are given below.
The following correlation matrix shows how Engagement variables are correlated among
themselves with a hypothesis and significance of correlation coefficients are given below.
Objective 5: To explore the relationship between employee engagement and employee
retention.
Ho10: Engagement Variables are not positively correlated
Ha10: Engagement Variables are positively correlated
Correlation Matrix on Degrees of Engagement
A B C D E F G H I J
A Pearson 1 .434(* .420(* .314(* .341(* .326(* .305(* .264(* .225(* .290(*
Correlation *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
B Pearson .434(* 1 .584(* .445(* .559(* .425(* .443(* .434(* .321(* .370(*
Correlation *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
C Pearson .420(* .584(* 1 .421(* .587(* .470(* .581(* .581(* .378(* .466(*
Correlation *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
D Pearson .314(* .445(* .421(* 1 .343(* .346(* .420(* .320(* .547(* .421(*
Correlation *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

N 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
E Pearson .341(* .559(* .587(* .343(* 1 .423(* .417(* .446(* .333(* .446(*
Correlation *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)
-Sig. (2- .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
tailed)
N 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
F Pearson .326(* .425(* .470(* .346(* .423(* 1 .566(* .475(* .615(* .627(*
Correlation *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
G Pearson .305(* .443(* .581(* .420(* .417(* .566(* 1 .663(* .472(* .568(*
Correlation *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
H Pearson .264(* .434(* .581(* .320(* .446(* .475(* .663(* 1 .419(* .479(*
Correlation *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
I Pearson .225(* .321(* .378(* .547(* .333(* .615(* .472(* .419(* 1 .559(*
Correlation *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
J Pearson .290(* .370(* .466(* .421(* .446(* .627(* .568(* .479(* .559(* 1
Correlation *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *) *)
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The above correlation matrix shows the engagement variables G (I consider my company’s
problems as my own) and H (I attach great respect to my company and its employees) to be
positively correlated with the value of 0.663. Statistical significance at 1% los indicates that

the G and H variables together are contributing the highest 66.3% towards degree of
engagement among the middle level managers.
Engagement variables -F, (I would like to continue to work in the company for the rest of
my life) and variable J, (I feel that I am emotionally attached to my company), are also
positively correlated with the value of 0.627, with statistical significance level at 1%,
indicates that F and J variables together contribute 62.7% towards engagement among
middle level managers.
Further the Variable F and variable I, are the third contributor to the engagement of middle
level managers. The variable F- “I would like to continue to work in the company for the
rest of my life “and variable I- “Even if it is to my advantage, I feel, I should not leave my
company”, with a positive correlation value of 0.615, at 1% significance level, contributes
61.5%, towards employee engagement.
Likewise, most of the variables, C, E=0.587, G, J=0.568, F, G=566, B, E=559, showed
positive correlation. Also it is observed that the engagement variables A (lot of pride, I work
for my company) and J (emotionally attached to my company) shows less positively
correlated with the value of 0.290 with statistical significance at 1% los indicates these two
variables contributes 29% towards degree of engagement among the middle level managers.
Table 4.30 shows that average percentage of intention to stay is 78.28% which is highest
compared to other decisions of respondents (neutral and Intent to leave). This indicates that
middle level managers are loyal and do not want to leave the company.
Table 4.30: Retention Aspects among Middle Level Managers
Retention variables Intent to Neutral Intent to

stay Leave
Will not look for new job within one year 76.5 20.6 2.9
Not Started thinking about leaving the company 80.6 15.5 3.8
Will come back to work again in this company. 72.6 20.6 6.8
Will not leave the company z69.7 25.5 4.8
Job provides lot of challenges both , job and my 92 7.4 0.6
organization are important

Mean 78.28 17.92 3.78
Figure 4.14: Bar chart for Retention aspects among Middle Level Managers.
RETENTION ASPECTS AMONG MIDDLE LEVEL

MANAGERS 92%
100 80.6%
76.5% 72.6%
80 69.7% Intent to stay
60 Neutral
40 20.6% 20.6% 25.5% Intent to Leave
15.5%
20 2.9% 3.8% 6.8% 4.8% 7.4%
0.6%
0
a b c d e
The figure 4.14 Bar chart shows that intentions of middle level managers towards retention
aspects. It is found that 92% of the middle level managers are considering that Job provides
lot of challenges both, job and my organization are important(e) and 0.6% with opposite
intention. Indicating that majority of middle level managers are having challenges in their
job and which keeps them motivating towards engagement
With respect to “intention to leave”, it is observed that 3.8% of the respondents expressed
their wish to leave the company, this finding is negligent when compared with 80.6% of the
respondents are “not started to think about leaving the company” (b).
For the question (a) about their plan to change the company and look for new job, within
next one year, majority of the respondents (76.5%) indicated they will not look for new job
in the near future and 2.9% of the respondents are having plans to change jobs, within one
year. This finding indicates a positive mind set with lesser frustrated middle level managers,
wanting to change jobs.
Further it is interesting to note that when asked, whether the employees would come back to
work again for the company (c), 72.6% of the respondents, agreed. This finding shows that
the middle level managers in the respondent organizations are having a good opinion about
their organization.
Ho11: There is no relationship between Employee engagement and Retention

Ha11: There is a relationship between Employee engagement and Retention.
RV
a Chi-Square 55.47 37.816 134.338 34.002 156.131 128.869 37.608 27.725 99.6 47.819
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.001 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
b Chi-Square 134.517 79.053 329.244 31.91 381.706 125.915 42.85 18.821 117.829 86.214
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
c Chi-Square 28.045 102.282 47.965 61.311 33.305 90.6 75.931 58.138 102.93 105.115
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
d Chi-Square 33.618 197.706 65.722 59.142 62.596 186.186 82.65 67.738 259.756 150.627
df 12 12 12 20 16 16 16 8 20 16
P-value 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
e Chi-Square 19.313 200.232 47.954 31.81 54.371 93.601 56.137 73.931 112.927 93.106
df 9 9 9 15 12 12 12 6 15 12
P-value 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Sample size 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310 310
The analyses show that the relationship between retention variables and degrees of
engagement variables are statistically significant at 1% los indicates engaged middle level
managers would ultimately stay in the company
Influence of engagement variables towards retention:
To test the influence of degrees of engagement towards retention of middle level managers
of the organization with the hypothesis, regression model is adopted. The results of the test
are given below.
H012: There is no significant influence of Employee Engagement on Retention.
Ha12: There is a significant influence of Employee Engagement on Retention.
The above hypothesis is tested with the Regression Model is given by
Y (Retention) =X (Employee Engagement) +C
In this case, retention is considered as a dependent variable and employee engagement as
Independent variable.
Dependent variable(Retention Independent R F-test P- Significance

variables) variables( Value
Engagement
Variables

Will not look for new job within Q.24 ( A,B, ,D E,F H 0.520 11.093 0.000 Significant
one year and ,J) @ 1 % los
Not Started thinking about leaving Q.24 ( A,B, ,D E,F H 0.557 13.475 0.000 Significant
the company and ,J) @ 1 % los
Will come back to work again in 0.455 7.791 0.000 Significant
this company. Q.24 ( A,B, ,D E,F H @ 1 % los
and ,J)
Will not leave the company Q.24 ( A,B, ,D E,F H 0.654 22.369 0.000 Significant
and ,J) @ 1 % los
Job provides lot of challenges both Q.24 ( A,B, ,D E,F H 0.575 14.751 0.000 Significant
, job and my organization are and ,J) @ 1 % los
important
The analysis shows that regression model is significant in all the cases at 1% los which
proves that employee engagement leads employee retention with moderate positive
correlation. Findings indicate that Retention is a factor of Engagement. When an employee
is engaged, he will be staying in the organization. Engaged employees are less likely to leave
the company.
Null Hypothesis gets rejected in view of above test. The test results establish that there is a
significant relationship between retention and employee engagement. Engagement has an
influence on employee retention.
Further this study makes an attempt to check the retention aspects individually and later
comparison is done between SML and YML for in depth analysis.’
The table 4.31 shows SML managers are having overall mean percentage of 49.03 of intent
to stay in the organization is high. For the question, “Will not leave the company”, the
response rate is 45%, and similarly for Q “Not Started thinking about leaving the
company”,’’ “Will not look for new job within one year’’, for all these questions the
responses are with nearly majority of the middle level managers answering that they are
going to stay and do not have plans to quit the company.
Table 4.31: Retention aspects among SML Mangers

Retention variables INTEND NEUTRAL INTEND

TO STAY TO
LEAVE
Not Started thinking about leaving the company 49.35 10.00 1.29
Will come back to work again in this company. 47.74 9.35 3.55
Will not leave the company 44.52 13.23 1.29
Job provides lot of challenges both , job and my 56.13 4.19 0.32
Mean 49.03 9.68 1.61
Figure 4.15 shows for all these questions the responses are with nearly majority of the middle
level managers answering that they are going to stay and do not have plans to quit the
company, indicate that respondent organizations are having middle managerial team who
are going to serve the company for considerable period of time.
Figure 4.15: Bar chart for Retention among SML Managers.
RETENTION ASPECTS AMONG SML MANAGERS
56.13%
60.00 49.35%
47.42% 47.74%
50.00 44.52% INTEND TO STAY
40.00 NEUTRAL
30.00
13.23% INTEND TO LEAVE
20.00 11.61% 10.00% 9.35%
10.00 1.61% 1.29% 3.55% 1.29% 4.19%
0.32%
0.00
a b
RETENTION c
VARIABLES d e
Table 4.32: Retention aspects among YML Mangers

Retention variables INTEND NEUTRAL INTEND TO
TO STAY LEAVE

Not Started thinking about leaving the 29.68 5.48 2.58
company
Will come back to work again in this 23.55 11.29 2.90
company.
Will not leave the company 23.55 12.26 1.94
Job provides lot of challenges both , job and 34.19 3.23 0.32
my organization are important
Mean 27.68 9.68 1.81
The tables 4.32 shows YML managers have a mean 27.68%of intention to stay which is
much lower than SML managers in the organization. The survey results show that the level
of engagement in the younger middle managers are less and these younger managers are
having less engagement in their job and for the company.
Comparison of Retention aspects between SML and YML:

Table 4.33: Comparison of Retention among between SML and YML Mangers
Retention Variables Young Senior
Middle Middle
Level Level
Will not look for new job within one year 27.42 47.42
Not Started thinking about leaving the company 29.68 49.35
Will come back to work again in this company. 23.55 47.74
Will not leave the company 23.55 44.52
Job provides lot of challenges both , job and my 34.19 56.13
Mean 27.68 49.03
Figure 4.16 Bar chart for Retention aspects among SML and YML Managers

COMPARISION OF RETENTION ASPECTS AMONG SML AND YML MANAGERS

56.13%
60.00
47.42% 49.35% 47.74%
50.00 44.52%
40.00 34.19%
27.42% 29.68%
30.00 23.55% 23.55%
20.00
10.00
0.00
a b c d e INTEND TO STAY
RETENTION VARIABLES NEUTRAL
The above figure 4.16, compares the trend towards employee retention between younger
middle level managers and senor middle level managers .It is observed that the senior middle
managers are less likely to leave the organization, indicated by the higher percentage to the
question-intend to leave at 47.42,whereas for the same question younger middle managers
are showing a reduced percentage, there by inferring that younger managers given a chance,
may leave the company before their senior managers. This also strengthens the finding of
this study where it is observed lesser level of engagement among younger mangers.
Employee retention is a factor of engagement, indicating that engaged employees are likely
to stay with the company for longer periods. The investigation shows that in general the
employees intention to stay are maximum compared to neutral and intention to leave,
whether it is the case of senior or younger managers. Which otherwise indicates that large
number of middle level managers are loyal and engaged, this trend is encouraging and would
lead to long term organizational growth.
4.6 ROLE OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN ORGANIZATION

This sub chapter deals with the role and importance of middle level managers, in
organizations. The present study is concerned with middle level managers, who are viewed
as an essential link between the top level management and lower level. It is the middle
managers who are responsible for implementation of various managerial policies and
strategies. Apart from getting things done through involving subordinates on day today basis,

they are involved in functional areas and responsible for results. The role of middle level
managers is particularly significant, when these managers motivate subordinates, and create
second line managers, help in Succession planning, the organization could develop into
performing organizations with a team of competent, motivated employees.
Table 4.34: Role of Middle Level Managers towards Subordinates.

Role Towards Subordinates Guiding Neutral Not Total
subordinates Guiding
subordinates
I think that I have a substantial role in 298 9 3 310
influencing the job performance of my
subordinates
My subordinates consult me in job related 298 10 12 310
matters
My subordinates get motivated after their 294 16 0 310
interaction with me
I willingly guide my subordinates when 308 2 0 310
the need arises
My subordinates require my assistance in 272 30 8 310
their decision making process
I strongly feel that by guiding my 302 7 1 310
subordinates I and my team of
subordinates can reach company goals
To understand the role of Middle level managers towards their subordinates, the above
questions were administered and to measure their response towards engagement, Likert’s
type scale was used .The respondents had the following choices when answering each
question: strongly disagree, disagree, (Guiding subordinates),neither agree nor
disagree(Neutral),agree, and strongly agree,(Not guiding sub ordinates)Further strongly
disagree was coded as one point, whereas strongly agree was coded as five points.

From the above table 4.34, it can be observed that, for the question-- I think that I have a
substantial role in influencing the job performance of my subordinates-majority of the
respondents had agreed 298 (96.12%) indicating that they are willing to guide their
subordinates. Out of the 310 respondents only three (0.9%) had disagreed, to guide their
subordinates. This finding is positive and shows that in the respondent organizations, middle
level managers are motivated and eager to build a team of second line management with
guidance and their support.
To the question My subordinates consult me in job related matters, To this question most of
the respondents had agreed that their subordinates consult in job related matters. The
percentage is 298 (96.12%), indicating most of the subordinates approach their seniors for
assistance and guidance. And a meagre 0.64% of subordinates do number of subordinates
do not consult middle managers in job related matters.
The role of Middle level managers, in motivating their subordinates is observed against the
question- “My subordinates get motivated after their interaction with me”, wherein the
middle level manager plays a significant role of motivation in their interpersonal relations
with their subordinates. This response indicates getting things done as a managerial function
with motivation is may go a long way in creating a positive work place.
Further the study establishes that the middle level managers of the surveyed organizations
are eager and enthusiastic about guiding their subordinates willingly with 308 (99.35%) of
the respondents are agreeing for guidance.
Compared to other responses the middle managers have given slightly lesser agreement, for
the question about their assistance to subordinates towards decision making process, which
shows that middle level managers do not fully agree to leave the decision making process to
the hands of their subordinates. The inference that can be drawn is that middle managers are
taking responsibility and accountability seriously.
The second highest response was given by the middle level managers are for the question
that by guiding their subordinates, both of them could reach company goals. It is inferred
that these middle managerial cadre employees are highly committed and motivate to build a
team of subordinates towards achieving organizational goals.
Table 4.35: Analysis of Mean and SD:

Role Towards Subordinates Mean SD

I think that I have a substantial role in influencing the 4.38 0.593
job performance of my subordinates
My subordinates consult me in job related matters 4.36 0.580

My subordinates get motivated after their interaction 4.32 0.567
with me
I willingly guide my subordinates when the need 4.45 0.512
arises
My subordinates require my assistance in their 4.16 0.698
decision making process
I strongly feel that by guiding my subordinates I and 4.55 0.560
my team of subordinates can reach company goals
Overall mean/SD 4.37 0.585

I get irritated when my subordinates approach me in 1.52 0.766
work related matters
The above table 4.35, shows mean and SD ratings, indicates that the respondent middle
managers are of the opinion that they have to play substantial role in motivating and guiding
their subordinates.
With reference to the table 4.36, The present study indicates higher level of engagement
among middle level managers. This is further strengthened by the responses to the above
questions. The response to the question Most of the time, I would speak highly about my
organization, indicates that 287 (92.58%) of respondents are agreeing and are favorable.
This response indicates majority of the respondents speak highly of their organization, and
generally they “advocate” for their organization; which again is possible only when
employees are engaged.
The responses to other questions are also indicates the reasons why respondents are engaged
and having a positive opinion about their organization. For the question “My organization
has adequate employee welfare measures”, most of the respondents, i.e. 274 (88.38%),
express that their organization has got enough employee welfare measures, which again

indicates that it is the responsibility on the part of employer to create conditions, that would
foster engagement.
Further when asked about the opportunities towards developing skills, majority of the
respondents 290 (93.54%) agreed and favorably responded that they are provided with
opportunities for development, which again is the responsibility on the part of respondent
organization to provide development programs. here again majority of the respondents are
from service organization where in up gradation is required.
The question about” I would consider my organization as best compared to other similar
organizations “got a favorable reply. Most of the employees 279 (90%), considered that their
organization is the best compared to other similar organizations.
For the question- “In my organization seniors treat their subordinates with respect
“response rate is as high as 290 (90%), indicating that in the respondent organization there
is a positive work environment which is responsible for their high level of engagement.
All in all, from the discussion of above responses it could be inferred that the, employer
(organization) has to look into a two-way relationship where both employee and employer
has to contribute their part. The present investigation indicates higher level of engagement
in individual parameters, however the above questions were included to get the opinion of
the respondents about their organization, and these responses also becomes significant, in
terms of organizational responsibilities and commitment.
Table 4.36: Organizational aspects, towards engagement.

Organizational Aspects Favorable Neutral Not Total
favorable
Most of the time, I would speak highly about my 287 17 6 310
organization
My organization has a clear set of strategic goals towards 290 19 1 310
organizational development
My organization has adequate employee welfare 274 35 1 310
measures
My organization provides opportunities for me to 290 12 8 310
develop my skills and knowledge

My organization has a clear vision of the future 284 24 2 310

My organization communicates effectively with 273 34 3 310
employees.
I would consider my organization as best compared to 279 28 3 310
other similar organizations
Innovation and experimentation is encouraged by my 210 97 3 310
organization
In my organization seniors treat their subordinates with 290 20 0 310
respect
My organization does not discriminate employees 285 23 2 310
Table 4.37: Opinion towards Engagement issues

Statements towards Employee Engagement Agree Neutral Disagree Total
Issues
My role and responsibilities are clearly defined at 289 18 3 310
work
I have all the necessary tools, equipment and 292 14 4 310
materials to do my job correctly.(e.g.-computer
hardware ,related software etc.)
At work I am provided with opportunity to do 288 21 1 310
what I do best every day
In the recent past, I have received 230 53 27 310
recognition/reward/ praise for my work
At work, my superior encourages my 268 34 8 310
development and growth
I think at work my voice, suggestions have a say 249 48 13 310
I have a best friend at my work place 254 41 15 310
My colleagues are committed to do good and 280 29 1 310
quality work

I can motivate and inspire my subordinates and 304 5 1 310

play a substantial role in guiding them towards
the growth of the organization
The mission, purpose and goals of the 294 15 1 310
organization, makes me feel that my job is
important
I had the opportunity to learn and grow in the last 277 28 5 310
one year
My superior gives me feedback at regular 265 34 11 310
intervals of time
I am a team player 303 4 3 310
I am of the opinion that pay & benefits of my 228 67 15 310
organization are comparable with other similar
organizations
I have plans to continue in this organization for 228 68 14 310
next two years, even if I get good opportunity,
outside
From the above table 4.37, with respect to engagement issues and role of middle level
managers, for the question “My role and responsibilities are clearly defined at work
“majority of the respondents 289 (93%) had indicated that their role at work has been clearly
defined by the organization. (6%) of middle managers responded that they are not clear about
their role and around 1% middle managers indicated that their roles have not been clearly
defined. The survey establishes role clarity among majority of middle level managers, which
also validates to the finding of the study about higher level of middle managerial
engagement.
For the question, “I have all the necessary tools, equipment and materials to do my job
correctly. (e.g.-computer hardware, related software etc.)”, most of the middle level
managers 292 (94%) of the respondent organizations indicated that they are provided with
necessary equipment for performing assigned tasks. This response indicates that selected
organizations for the study has provided faculties and created good work environment,
which also influences employee engagement.

As regards “opportunity for doing the best in work”, 283 (93%) of middle managerial
employees opined that they are provided with opportunity to do a job well. Again this finding
indicates management of these organizations are proactive and employee friendly, which
explains the reason for survey findings of higher managerial engagement.
As far as organizational rewards and recognition are concerned, 230 (74%) of the
respondents had expressed that they have received reward and recognition from their
respective organizations. However, 17% of the respondents a, are Neutral and 9%, did not
received rewards. Finding indicates organizations are not fully positive in terms of rewards
and recognition of their middle managerial employees.
Towards, middle managerial development, 268 (86%) of the respondents’ agreed that their
superiors are interested in their growth and development. This finding is also positive
towards employee engagement.
The question about Autonomy at work,” I think at work my voice, suggestions have a say”,
shows response rate of 249 (80%), which establishes that when managers are allowed to give
suggestions and which is being heard in the organization could create environment of
engagement. However, 20% of the respondents are not having any say and their voices are
not heard.
Question about having a friend in the work place, got 254 (82%) of the middle managers are
having best friends in the work place, which is a positive finding. Further 280 (90%) of the
respondents agreed that their colleagues are doing quality job. This finding is also in line
with having friends at work, as committed colleagues can act as good friends. Overall it can
be inferred that the respondents are having a great place to work.
All most all of the middle level managers 304 (98%), had agreed that they can motivate and
inspire their subordinates, and guide them towards the growth of the organization. This
response is in sync with earlier finding in the study about majority of the middle level
managers expressed their opinion that they play a substantial role in guiding subordinates.
294 (95%) of the middle level managers are of the opinion that, the mission, purpose and
goals of the organization makes them feel that their job is important and this finding indicates
that these managers take their assignments in the job with lot of pride. This mind-set explains
that organizational goals could become a motivating factor, towards engagement
With respect to opportunity to learn and grow, and feedback from superiors the response rate
is almost similar, 277 (89%) had the opportunity to learn and grow and 265 (85%) of the

managers got feedback from their superiors. This finding indicates that these middle level
managers are having good executive developments arranged by their respective
organizations and the work atmosphere is great. Superiors are also taking interest in the
professional growth by giving feedback at regular intervals.
Today’s organizations require employees working as a team. For the question” I am a Team
player”, all most all of the middle managers 303 (98%), said that they are team players.
Working in groups and teams also could lead to higher engagement, as managers working
as team leaders can inspire, motivate and get things done.
The question, “I am of the opinions that pay & benefits of my organization are comparable
with other similar organizations”, was included so as to know about the compensation paid
to the middle managers. The response rate is less 228 (73.5%), compared to other responses,
indicating that the compensation package is not up to the expectations of middle level
managers. Earlier in the study also it is found that the 40% of the respondents are earning,
between 2-4 lakhs and 30% between 4-6 lakhs. This finding suggests that the pay and
benefits needs to be looked in to by the organization.
It is with respect to plans for continuing in the same organization, even if they get better
opportunity outside, 228 (74%) of the respondents, agreed. On the other hand, 22%, took the
Neutral stand and 4%, of the respondents wants to quit the organization. The finding
correlates with the finding on retention as majority of the middle level managers intend to
stay in the organization.
4.7 OVERALL ENGAGEMENT AND RETENTION

Overall Engagement:
The present study looks in to various individual, and Job factors influencing, employee
engagement. It is essential to observe how engagement is looked in overall perspective. The
following ten statements are taken as variables for the study on employee engagement, which
could influence overall engagement scores among middle level managers. The results of
analysis are summarized below in the form of overall engagement matrix.
Sl. No Engagement Variables
A It is with lot of pride, I work for my company
B I would recommend my company to others as a great place to work

C I show care and concern for the future of my company

D I would strongly recommend to my relatives, friends and acquaintances that
they do business with my company
E I would be going the extra mile to discharge my duties for the company
F I would like to continue to work in the company for the rest of my life
G I consider my company’s problems as my own
H I attach great respect to my company and its employees
I Even if it is to my advantage, I feel, I should not leave my company
J I feel that I am emotionally attached to my company
Table 4.38: Overall engagement Matrix

Engagement Engaged Neutral Dis-Engaged
Young Middle Level Managers 29.35% 7.05% 1.35%
Senior Middle Level Managers 51.97% 6.10% 1.26%
Over all engagement 81.32% 13.15% 2.61%
Sample size 310
,
The above engagement matrix shown in table 4.38 indicates that overall, it is the senior
middle level managers who are more engaged when compared to their young middle level
managers. Out of the total 310 middle managers surveyed, over all with 81.32% respondents
are engaged covering both SML and YML. This finding indicates that the majority of the
middle level managers are engaged. However as already established it is the senior middle
level managers who are more engaged, when compared to their counter parts the younger
level managers. This could be due to lesser role and responsibilities given to the middle
managers at the beginning of their careers.
It is interesting to note that with respect to respondents who are Neutral, does not show
significant variation. SML employees who are Neutral with engagement are with6.10% and
YML employees are with 7.05%.
As far as disengagement is concerned, the percentage of disengaged senior middle managers
are marginally less than younger middle managers with 1.26% and 1.35% respectively.
Over all Retention:

As per the findings of the survey Retention is the outcome of employee engagement.
Organizations will continue to prosper when employees remain in the organization and
contribute. Hence the below analysis is done in order to know the overall retention picture
in the surveyed organization.
Five statements on Retention are taken as variables for the study on employee retention
among middle level managers of the organization. These Variables are leading to overall
retention scores which is summarized below in the form of overall Retention matrix.
Sl. No Retention Variables
1 I will be looking for new job in another company within one year
2 Of late I have started thinking about leaving the company
3 If, for unavoidable reasons I had to leave the company, and if, I get one more
4 There is a great opportunity to attain my career goals in this company, so I will
not leave the company
5 My job provides me with lot of challenges and I like both , my job and my
organization
Table 4.39: Overall Retention Matrix:

Retention Intend Neutral Intent to
to stay Leave
Young Middle Level Managers 27.68% 8.26% 1.81%
Senior Middle Level Managers 49.03% 9.68% 1.61%
Over all engagement 76.71% 17.94% 3.42%
Sample size 310
The above table 4.39 shows that Out of the 310 respondents of selected automobile
organizations, the overall engagement of middle level managers is with 76.71%, who do not
want to leave the company. When employees are willing to stay in an organization it
indicates that only when employees are engaged then they decide to stay back. On the other
hand, it is the frustrated and disengaged employees who often think in terms of leaving the
company.

The survey findings indicate that 49% of senior middle level managers are happy with their
job and organization and expressed that they do not want to leave the organization. Whereas
young middle level managers are not very happy and only 28% of them intend to stay with
the organization. This finding is significant in the sense that, organizations with younger
generation employees would face challenges in attrition rates.
Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is a powerful tool to reduce large number of variables into fewer important
factors. Each of these factors contributes to some extent towards engagement. Further factor
analysis focuses on which of the many factors integral towards enriching engagement. The
results of factor analysis are summarized below
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of
.884
Sampling Adequacy.
Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi- 1416.36
Sphericity Square 6
df 45
Sig. .000
This KMO and Bartlett’s test gives criteria to get into the Factor Analysis of Engagement
variables.
Commonalities matrix of Engagement variables given below shows the sum of the
squared factor loadings for all factors for a given variable (row) is the variance in that
variable accounted for by all the factors. It is found to be more than 0.5 for most of the
variables except D.
Engagement Initial Extraction

Variables
A 1.000 .501
B 1.000 .683
C 1.000 .696
D 1.000 .415

E 1.000 .592
F 1.000 .662
G 1.000 .631
H 1.000 .534
I 1.000 .721
J 1.000 .664
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Total Variance Explained by components of factors extracted using Principal Component

Analysis is given below
Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared
Initial Eigen values Loadings Loadings
% of % of % of
Compo Varianc Cumulat Varianc Cumulat Varianc Cumulat
nent Total e ive % Total e ive % Total e ive %
1 5.023 50.232 50.232 5.023 50.232 50.232 3.344 33.441 33.441
2 1.076 10.759 60.991 1.076 10.759 60.991 2.755 27.550 60.991
3 .848 8.480 69.471
4 .673 6.733 76.204
5 .612 6.116 82.320
6 .441 4.406 86.726
7 .402 4.018 90.744
8 .350 3.498 94.242
9 .316 3.156 97.399
10 .260 2.601 100.000
This shows that ten variables can be grouped into two factors F1 and F2 with maximum
loadings and %variance explained by F1and F2 is, 60.99% based on Eigen values which
should be more than one.

Rotated Component Matrix (a) gives Proper loadings of engagement variables for two
factors is generated with PCA
Engagement Component
variables Factor-1 Factor-2
A .092 .702
B .255 .786
C .405 .729
D .545 .343
E .306 .706
F .770 .262
G .685 .402
H .576 .449
I .846 .076
J .778 .242
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization and a Rotation converged in 3
iterations.
The components of Factors of engagement variables can be re structured below

Engagement Variables Factor-1 Factor-2
A 0.702
B 0.786
C 0.779
D 0.545
E 0.706
F 0.770
G 0.685
H 0.576
I 0.846

J 0.778
From this table, Factor-1 is found with engagement variables D, F, G, H, I and J with
maximum loadings. Factor -2 is found with engagement variables A, B, C and E with
maximum loadings.
Results of the factor analysis indicated the importance of engagement variables in
groupings.
F-1 indicates that the employees coming under this grouping, indicating employees show lot
of affinity and express their advocacy towards the company. On the other hand, the
engagement variables loaded and grouped under Factor-2, employees are proud to work for
the company and are highly involved.

Jain University Bharathraj Shetty A K (Phdaug2011-93)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jain University Bharathraj Shetty A K (Phdaug2011-93)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JAIN UNIVERSITY B H AR AT H R AJ S H E T T Y A K ( P H D AU G 2 0 1 1 - 9 3 )

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE

Table 4.1: Industry type

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 74

Respondents as per wise Sectorwise

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 75

Respondents as per Designation wise

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 76

Figure 4.3: pie chart for age of the respondents

Respondents as per age wise

Male 274 88.4

Respondents as per Gender

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 77

Married 262 84.5

Figure 4.5: Bar chart for Marital status of the respondents

Respondents as per Marital status

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 78

Below 2lakhs 3 1.0

2-4 lakhs 124 40.0

10 lakhs and above 27 8.7

Figure 4.6: Bar chart for Income of the respondents

Respondents as per Annual Income

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 79

Diploma 127 41.0

Respondents as per Qualification wise

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 80

Table 4.8: Job responsibilities of the respondents

Operations & Results 281 90.6

Table 4.9: Respondents as per Department wise.

Human Resource 23 7.4

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 81

Figure 4.8: Bar chart for respondents as per Department wise.

Respondents as per Department

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 82

Age Distribution for YML and SML Mangers

Table 4.10: Degree of Engagement among SML and YML Mangers

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 83

D I would strongly recommend to my relatives 31.94 54.19

J I feel that I am emotionally attached to my 22.26 47.74

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 84

COMPARISION OF DEGREEE OF ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN YML AND SML MANAGERS

Table 4.11: Overall Engagement among SML and YML Managers

Objective-1: To Study the influence of demographic profile (age) on employee

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 85

Table 4.12: Distribution of YML &SML managers for Z-test.

The Z-test results are summarized below.

Computed Z-Statistic Z-Table value Decision

Table 4.13: No of changes in jobs of respondents

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 86

Respondents as per No of Job changes

Table 4.14: Total Experience of Respondents

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 87

Total 310 100

Respondents as per Total experiance

0-5 235 75.8

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 88

Table 4.16: Work Experience in Present Organization

0-10 170 54.8

Figure 4.13: Bar chart for years of experience in Present organization.

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 89

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT: A STUDY OF MIDDLE LEVEL MANAGERS IN AUTOMOBILE SECTOR 90

E Neutral 4.84 0.65 5.48