11 Chapter 2

Chapter – II –Literature Review
CHAPTER - II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter comprises review of research papers; articles & research thesis etc, which
are related to the present study. The chapter also includes highlights of the reviewed
research material followed by identification of research gap.
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO LITERATURE REVIEW
Researcher’s focus in the literature review has been to improve and to reinforce the
understanding of important aspects of research as a subject. Literature review includes
topics ranging from research methodology, statistics, Concept of Employee
engagement, Factors influencing employee engagement, Models designed by various
authors, Review of IT/ITES Companies in Pune city, Trends in IT /ITES etc. Literature
Review referred several other works on similar topics to help understand the
methodology and approach used by other researchers.
Researcher has referred more than fifteen(15) books, thesis and approximately eighty
(80) research papers and articles from Journals of national and international repute,
Industry reports and magazines covering the various topics and aspects of the research
as mentioned above for this study. Researcher has also taken extensive data from web
sites (IT/ ITES Annual reports, IBEF, NASSCOM, CITE HR etc.).
Literature on employee engagement is widely available. More so because attrition is a
typical problem faced by IT/ITES industry and hence lot of research has taken place in
this area. IT/ITES is a highly technology driven field and changes are rapid. This
demands constant updated HR skills. Moreover IT/ITES is a global phenomenon. It has
20
brought the entire world under one umbrella. However, people from different cultures
coming together makes it challenging to devise generally applicable HR strategy.
Referable to the vast quantity of literature available on the subject it was a difficult task
to take the appropriate literature for review. But once the objectives of the literature
review were framed, a scheme emerged that made the task a bit easier.
2.2 GUIDANCE USED
The researcher used three types of literature review options were evaluated in
consultation with the guide and experts – a conventional, stand-alone types, and agency
research types and use of an existing literature review.
The Conventional option suffers from limitations like lack of coherence, more of
quantity orientation, irrelevant inclusions etc. The stand-alone option was based on
using reports of agencies like Gallup. But the problem is that these are consulting firms
and it is possible that their reports may be biased towards creating a favourable impact
on the materials they are using. For example if we refer to the Gallup’s (2016), “2016
Q12® Meta-Analysis: Ninth Edition”, in its conclusion they have said – “This means
that practitioners can apply the Q12 measure in a variety of situations with confidence
that the measure captures important performance-related information.” Now Q12 is an
employee engagement measurement scale which the consultancy sells, hence it was
thought that for the sake of independence such reports should be referred but only in a
limited manner. The agency research type option was an academic work in the frame of
a literature review carried by a squad of researchers – Sandeep Kular, Mark Gatenby,
Chris Rees, Emma Soane, Katie Truss for the Kingston University. Later on a
deliberate survey of the LR, a decision was struck to consider the same because of the
falling out-
21
1) A really sound set of objectives of LR that causes a direct linkage with the 1st
objective of this work, that is to say, to see the concept of Employee
Engagement and identify the components of employee participation.
2) A highly cohesive and all-pervasive approach and
3) Lucid style of presentation
It was discussed whether the reference to this LR would mean plagiarism. Following
are stated in this regard –
1) Complete referencing would be made giving the name of the author(s) and
related credentials,
2) Wherever possible, use of own language would be made.
3) Based on the above considerations a decision was taken to refer to the LR by
Sandeep Kular et.al.
2.3 OBJECTIVES OF LITERATURE REVIEW
Based on the literature review on employee engagement by SandeepKularet.al (2008)
following objectives are set –
1) Understanding conceptualization of employee engagement
2) Studying relationship of individual differences with employee engagement
3) Studying relationship between employee involvement and employee
engagement
4) Studying relationship between employee engagement and Retention
2.4 SCHEME OF LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review is basically divided into four parts, Conceptualization of EE,
Relationship of individual differences with EE, Relationship of employee involvement
with EE, and Outcomes of EE.
22
Conceptualization of EE - meaning and definition of EE, the researcher also tried to
understand the relationship of EE with other terms which are closely related to EE.
Operationalization of EE - which includes defining variables of EE into measurable
factors/drivers as EE is qualitative concept. Categories of engaged employees and
dimensions of EE are also covered here.
Relationship of individual differences with EE covers modules such as perception,
personality and motivation etc., on engagement of employees.
Relationship of employee involvement with EE covers studies on Voice mechanism-
which means the participation of employees in decisions on EE factors. It also includes
management’s willingness to share control.
And finally, outcomes of EE studies conducted to reveal the outcomes of EE such as
Profits, performance, retention, productivity and advocacy of organisation etc. The
researcher reviewed those studies specifically whose outcome is retention because it is
the main purpose of the study and all other outcomes are just mentioned for knowledge
purpose.
23
Figure 2.1 Scheme of Literature Review
2.5. LITERATURE REVIEW
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF EE
A key challenge presented by the literature is the lack of a universal definition of
employee engagement.
Kahn (1990:694) has defined employee engagement as “the harnessing of organization
members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express
themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances”. The
24
cognitive dimension of employee engagement concerns employees’ beliefs about the
organization, its leaders and working conditions. The emotional dimension concerns
how employees feel about each of those three factors, and whether they have positive
or negative attitudes toward the organization and its leaders. The physical dimension of
employee engagement concerns the physical energies exerted by individuals to
accomplish their roles. Thus, according to Kahn (1990), engagement means to be
psychologically as well as physically connected when occupying and performing an
organizational role.
Baumruk 2004, employee engagement has been defined as an emotional and
intellectual commitment to the organization (Richman 2006 and Shaw 2005) or the
amount of discretionary effort showed by employees in their job (Frank et al 2004).
Although it is accepted and acknowledged that employee engagement is a multi-faceted
construct, as previously suggested by Kahn (1990), Truss et al (2006) defines
employee engagement in very simple terms as ‘passion for work’, a psychological state
which is seen to encompass the three dimensions of engagement discussed by Kahn
(1990), and captures the uniform theme running through all these definitions.
Ferguson 2007, the presence of a variety of definitions makes the state of knowledge
of employee engagement difficult to determine as each study examines employee
engagement under a different approach. In addition, unless the employee engagement
can be globally defined and measured, it cannot be managed, nor can it be known if
efforts to improve it are working (This explains the problems of comparability caused
by differences in definition. Further, whilst it is accepted that employee engagement
has been defined in many different ways, it is also argued the definitions often sound
similar to other better known and established constructs such as ‘organizational
commitment’ and ‘organizational citizenship behaviour’ (OCB) (Robinson et al
25
2004). Thus Robinson et al (2004) define employee engagement as ‘one step up from
commitment’. As a result, employee engagement has a look of being yet another
trend.
ENGAGEMENT AND OTHER TERMS
While the area of Employee engagement is interesting at the same time it is quite
confusing concept because of inconsistency in definitions. Some authors argue that
engagement is a multidimensional construct while some says it is a global construct as
it is a combination of job satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment and
organizational citizenship behaviour.
It would appear that there are sufficient grounds for claiming that engagement is
related to, yet distinct from, other settled terminologies in organizational behaviour
(Saks 2006).
Robinson et al (2004) state that: “… engagement contains many of the elements of
both commitment and OCB, but is by no means a perfect match with either. In
addition, neither commitment nor OCB reflects sufficiently two aspects of engagement
- its two-way nature, and the extent to which engaged employees are expected to have
an element of business awareness.”
OCBs are discretionary behaviours which are beyond formal obligations. It is an
outcome of the attitudes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment which
seems to be similar to the definitions in the engagement literature of willingness to go
the extra mile (Robinson, 2004).
Dessler 1999, Organizational commitment is the degree to which individual is
identified with his job and committed towards his work.
26
Allen and Meyer (1990) identify three types of commitment:
1) Affective Commitment: it occurs when an employee feels an emotional
attachment towards his organization
2) Continuance Commitment: it is related to the employee recognition of the costs
involved in leaving an organization.
3) Normative Commitment: it is related with the moral obligation to remain with
the organization, but employee engagement is very closely related to the
affective commitment.
But commitment and engagement are not considered as same. Rather, commitment is
an element of engagement (Little, 2006)
Saks (2006), claims that organizational commitment also differs from engagement in
the sense that it refers to a person’s attitude and attachment towards their organization,
whilst it could be claimed that engagement is not just an attitude; it is the degree to
which an individual is attentive to their work and absorbed in the performance of their
role. In addition, while OCB consists of voluntary and informal behaviours that can
help co-workers and the organization, the focus of engagement is one’s formal role
performance and not the extra-role and voluntary behaviour.
Csikszentmihalyi, 1975:36, The second related terms, the notion of ‘flow’, is
defined as the “holistic sensation that people feel when they act with total
involvement” (It is claimed that individuals in a flow experience need no external
rewards or goals to motivate them, as the activity it presents constant challenges
(Ibid). However, whilst flow is primarily the cognitive involvement of the individual
in an activity on a temporary basis, definitions of engagement imply a much longer-
term and more holistic involvement in work activities (Kahn, 1990; Holbeche and
Springett, 2003).
27
May et al (2004) engagement is most closely associated with the term job involvement
and ‘flow’ (Csikszentmihalyi 1990). Job involvement is defined as ‘a cognitive or
belief state of psychological identification’ (Kanungo 1982:342). This differs from
engagement as it is concerned more with how the individual employees themselves
during the performance of their job. Furthermore, whilst the emphasis of job
involvement is on cognitions, engagement, according to most definitions, also
encompasses emotions and behaviours. Job involvement is the degree to which one is
busy with, engaged in his job (Paullay, et al., 1994)
Locke and Henne, 1986, Job satisfaction is defined as a positive emotional state
resulting from the job experiences. It is positively related with organizational
commitment, job involvement and mental health and it is negatively related to turnover.
On the other hand, employee engagement is much more than job satisfaction. It occurs
when multiple job factors meet out.
DRIVERS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Drivers are those factors which enable engaged behaviour. Drivers of Employee
Engagement are those factors that lead to employee engagement. Some of these are
monetary while others are non-monetary. Some of these are tangible while others are
intangible. These factors are not universal, nor are they the same across industries. This
study discusses the employee engagement factors in general and those that are specific
to the IT industry in India.
28
Hewitt Drivers of Engagement
Table 2.1 – Drivers of employee engagement as per Hewitt

Company Total
People Work Opportunities Quality of life
Practices Rewards
People Pay Senior Work Career Work life
practices Leadership activities opportunities Balance
Policies Benefits Immediate Resources Learning Physical work
Manager /Development Environment
Diversity Recognition Co-workers Processes
Performance Customers
Assessment
Company
Reputation
Source - Employee Engagement Debashish Sengupta, S.Ramadoss
Towers Perrin has given the following drivers of engagement:
 Senior management’s interest in employees’ well-being
 Challenging work
 Decision-making authority
 Evidence that the company is focused on customers
 Career advancement opportunities
 The company’s reputation as a good employer
 A collaborative work environment where people work well in teams
 Resources to get the job done
 Input on decision making
 A clear vision from senior management about future success.
Development Dimensions International Inc., (DDI) Identifies three main drivers of
engagement:
 Right employees in right jobs
29
 Exceptional leadership
 Organization system and strategies
Corporate Leadership council employee engagement survey (2004) identified 25
drivers of engagement. These 25 drivers are classified into three categories.
Organizational culture and performance traits
 International communication
 Reputation of integrity
 Innovation
Day-to-day work characteristics and
 Connection between work and organizational strategy
 Importance of job to organizational success
 Understanding of how to complete work projects
Manager characteristic.
 Demonstrates strong commitment to diversity
 Demonstrates honesty and integrity
 Adapts to changing circumstances
 Clearly articulates organizational goal
 Possess job skills
 Sets realistic performance expectations
 Puts right people in the right roles at the right time
 Helps find solutions to problems
 Breaks down projects into manageable components
 Accepts responsibility for success and failures
 Encourages and manages innovation
 Accurately evaluates employee innovation
30
 Respects employees as individuals
 Demonstrates passion to succeed
 Cares about employees
 Has good reputation within the organization
 Is open to new ideas
 Defends direct reports
 Analytical thinking
Watson Wyatt Worldwide identified four primary and three secondary drivers of
engagement.
Primary drivers are:
 Belief that management explains reasons for major decisions.
 Satisfactory opportunities for development and advancement.
 Belief that the company encourages independent thinking.
 Clear link between performance and pay.
Secondary drivers are:
 Manageable stress levels.
 Culture of mutual respect.
 Opportunities for team working.
Mercer, a global consulting firm, gave key drivers as:
 Confidence in senior management.
 Paid fairly given performance.
 Organizational reputation for customer support.
 Sense of personal accomplishment.
 Comparable benefits to industry.
 Regular feedback on performance.
31
 Reasonable workload.
Melcrum identified 10 drivers for large and small companies.
Table 2.2 – Drivers of employee engagement as per Melcrum
Drivers Large companies Small companies

Senior leadership 2 1
Direct supervisors 1 2
Opportunities for career development 4 (joint) 3
Belief in company direction 5(joint) 4(joint)
People-centric culture 4(joint) 4(joint)
Training and development 5(joint) 6
Formal internal communication 6(joint) 7(joint)
Compensation and benefits 3 5
Involvement/consultation company 6(joint) 8
decisions
Formal recognition 4(joint) 7(joint)
Source - Employee Engagement Debashish Sengupta, S.Ramadoss
The drivers of employee engagement are classified into Practitioner perspectives and
Academic perspectives.
Robinson et al., 2004, Research conducted by the Institute for Employment Studies in
2004 found considerable variation in the views of authors in what drives engagement
and pointed out that ‘there is no easy answer as far as engagement is concerned – no
simple pulling off one or two levers to raise engagement levels’. It is unlikely that a
‘one size fits all’ approach is effective, as levels of engagement and its drivers vary
according to the organization, employee group, the individual and the job itself
(Robinson, 2007). There is ‘no definitive all-purpose list of engagement drivers’
(Chartered Institute of Personnel Development, 2007).
32
CATEGORIES OF ENGAGED EMPLOYEE
Gallup comprehensively identified 12 questions that most effectively evaluate the
same. They have undertaken employee engagement surveys for various client
organisations. They categorize employees into 3 different types-
Engaged--"Engaged" employees are builders. They require to experience the desired
expectations for their role so they can touch and surpass them. They're naturally curious
about their society and their position in it. They perform at consistently high grades.
They desire to apply their talents and strengths at work every day. They play with
passion and they force innovation and run their organisation ahead.
Not Engaged---“Not-engaged” employees tend to concentrate on tasks rather than the
goals and consequences they are expected to reach. They desire to be told what to do
just so they can practise it and say they have ceased. They concentrate on
accomplishing tasks vs. achieving an effect. Employees who are not-engaged tend to
feel their contributions are being neglected, and their potency is not being knocked.
They frequently feel this room because they don't have productive relationships with
their managers or with their co-workers.
Actively Disengaged--The "actively disengaged" employees are the "cave dwellers."
They're "Consistently against Virtually Everything." They're not just unhappy at work;
they're busy working out their unhappiness. They sow seeds of negativity at every
chance. Every day, actively disengaged workers undermine what their engaged co-
workers accomplish. As workers increasingly rely on each other to generate products
and services, the problems and tensions that are fostered by actively disengaged
workers can cause heavy harm to an organization's functioning.
33
DIMENSIONS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Physical Dimension of Employee Engagement
Kahn 1990, when engaged in a role, people employ and express themselves physically.
The physical dimension of involvement is demonstrated by the exertion of effort in
one’s business. This effort can range from lethargy (low engagement) to vigorous
physical and mental exertion. One’s physical engagement is thus partly dependent on
the context or mental and physical requirements of the office. Kahn indicated that
physical energies can be allocated to a scope of different activities, including on-task,
off-task, and self-regulation activities. All the same, when people are absorbed in their
role, physical energies are aimed at the accomplishment of role task.
Cognitive Dimension of Employee Engagement
Kahn (1990) indicated that conflict was manifested by the investment of personal
energies into cognitive labours. Previous research has indicated that cognitive labours
are made up of two components - attention, the amount of time one spends thinking
about role task, and absorption, the level of engrossment or intensity of focus on role
task (Gardner et al., 1989; Goffman, 1959, 1961; Kahn, 1990; Rothbard, 2001). As a
motivational resource of limited capacity (Kahneman, 1973; Locke & Latham, 1990),
an employee’s attention to role task is under the exclusive allocation and control of the
individual (March & Olsen, 1976). While running there may be multiple targets that
compete for one’s limited attention, resources, including role task, executive program,
organization, co-workers, or turned-work targets such as personal and home life.
Rothmann, S., & Rothmann, S. (2010), the needs of businesses to maximize the inputs
of employees have also contributed to the interest in engagement. Business needs are
driven by intense, often global, competition, which is increasing the need for
34
employees to be emotionally and cognitively committed to their company, their
customers and their work.
Affective Dimension of Employee Engagement
Kahn 1990, 1992 observed, people are engaged in their role when they exhibited
behaviours that indicated the investment of personal energies and emotions. Other
scholars have indicated that the investment of emotions into one’s role performance
exemplified role attachment (Kelman, 1958).
Kelman, (1958) the highest investment of personal energies into role performance is
one that took the infusion of emotions. At this point, people are “fully present” in their
task through an emotional connection between themselves and their work. This view is
consistent with Kahn (1990), who noted that individuals exhibited engaged in their
work roles when emotionally immersed in an activity. An individual’s emotional
experience at work often results from one’s feelings of enthusiasm, pride, and hostility.
Behavioural Dimension of Employee Engagement
Theresa Welbourne (2007) asserted that if an organization aspired to improve employee
participation across multiple organizations is to recognize what it looks like and focus
on the behaviours (not just attitudes). She suggested a role-based performance model
helps explain employee engagement by starting with the end goal in mind. The purpose
of all employee engagement initiatives improves firm performance. The role-based
performance model helps identify the types of behaviours needed for employees to
drive performance. The model defines five key roles that employees occupy at work -
Core jobholder role (what’s in the job description) - Entrepreneur or innovator role
(improving process, coming up with novel ideas, participating in others’ innovations),
Team member role (participating in teams, working with others in different
35
occupations), Career role (learning, engaging in natural processes to improve personal
skills
and knowledge)and Organizational member role (citizenship role or doing things that
are good for the company) of long-term firm performance of the behaviors of employee
engagement Some researchers have included OCB and related variants (pro social
behavior, contextual performance, and organizational spontaneity (Organ, Podsakoff &
Mc Kenzie, 2006), role expansion and the related constructs of proactive behavior
(Crant, 2000), and personal initiative in the behavioral dimensions of employee
engagement.(Frese & Fay, 2001).
Kahn (1990) and Schaufeli et al. (2002, 2008), it can be concluded that employee
engagement comprises three dimensions, namely a physical component (being
physically involved in a task and showing vigor and a positive affective state), a
cognitive component (being alert at work and experiencing absorption and
involvement), and an emotional component (being connected to one’s job/others while
working, and showing dedication and commitment).
Review of literature suggests that depiction of vigor, dedication and absorption at work
by employees are manifestations of physical, cognitive, affective and behavioral
dimensions of employee engagement.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT MODELS
Kahn’s Need Satisfying Approach
The first time employee engagement was mentioned in an Academy of Management
Journal article called “Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and
Disengagement at Work” (Kahn, 1990). In his article, Kahn defined personal
engagement as “the simultaneous employment and expression of a person’s “preferred
36
self” in a task behaviors that promote connection to work and to others, personal
presence, and active full role performance.” According to Kahn employees can be
engaged on a physical, emotional and cognitive level: these levels are significantly
affected by three psychological domains: meaningfulness, safety and availability
(Kahn, 1990). In a turn of events, these domains create influence on how employees
perceive and perform their roles at work.
Kahn defines meaningfulness as the positive “sense of return on investment of self in
role of implementation” (Kahn, 1990). He describes psychological meaningfulness as a
feeling the person receives in the renovation of the psychological, cognitive and
emotional energy invested in business performance. The employees experience
meaningfulness when they feel useful, valuable and not taken for granted, and that their
work is important, desired and valued as well. Work meaningfulness means that
employees are more strong to give their efforts to specific tasks, instead of withholding
– this indicates the presence of conflict.
Furthermore, safety was defined as the ability to extract one’s self “without fear or
negative effects to self image, status or career” (Kahn, 1990). The predictable, coherent
and clear positions at work make employees feel safer in their activities, which also
increases the likelihood of dispute. Availability, the third domain, Kahn defined as the
“sense of possessing the physical, emotional and psychological recourses” (Kahn,
1990) necessary to perform chores in this very second. It measures how ready the
employee is, taking into consideration the distractions they cause. The sole study to
date to empirically examine Kahn’s (1990) concept of exercise which was conducted
by May et al. Show that all three of Kahn’s (1990) psychological conditions were
positively related to the evolution of engagement at work (May et al., 2004). They also
found that meaningfulness was positively influenced by job enrichment and role fit;
37
rewarding co-worker and supportive supervisor relations, enhanced employees’ safety,
while adherence to co-worker norms and self-consciousness had negative effect; and
resource availability was a positive predictor of psychological availability, while
outside life had a negative outcome. Their findings also suggest that the framework
developed by Kahn (1990) established at conception for the future conceptualization of
engagement (Shuck and Wollard, 2010).
Maslach et al.’s Burnout-Antithesis Approach

Kahn’s research was the only published literature on engagement until 2001, when
Maslach, Schaufeli, and Leiter (2001) began their study on the job burnout concept. In
their work, they positioned employee engagement as the “positive antithesis” (Maslach
et al., 2001) to burn out. Therefore, employee involvement was determined as “a
persistent positive affective state of fulfilment in employees, characterized by vigour,
dedication and absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2002).
Energy refers to the employees’ willingness to invest their attempts into their job of
employment, higher levels of vitality and their endurance and persistence in the face of
difficulties. Dedication refers to the employees’ strong involvement in their work, their
feelings of enthusiasm and significance. Assimilation occurs when the employee is
pleasantly occupied with work, this can be seen by the employee not keeping the track
of time and their inability to distinguish themselves from the job at hand (Maslach et
al., 2001).
Burnout or disengagement arises when there is an imbalance between the doers and the
six work settings: workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values (Maslach
et al., 2001). According to Maslach et al. (2001), engagement is associated with the
match between an employee profile and the job. This match can be characterised by a
38
“sustainable workload, feelings of choice and control, appropriate recognition and
wages, a supportive work community, fairness and justice, and meaningful and valued
work” (Maslach et al., 2001).
Taking a look at Kahn’s (1990) concept of engagement and Maslach et al.’s (2001)
concept of burnout, it can be said that all of researchers took a similar setting for that
influence engagement or burn away. These include: the amount of physical, emotional
and psychological recourses available to the employee and the skills they possess,
feelings of choice and mastery, the need of acknowledgment as a reward, supportive
work interactions, and meaningful tasks and valued work (Maslach et al., 2001; Kahn,
1990). However, contrary to Kahn, who explains cognitive engagement processes,
Maslach et al. Lacks this explanation and instead presents engagement as the physical
or emotional absence of burnout.
Kahn’s (1990) and Maslachs et al.’s (2001) works are the first theoretical frameworks,
which facilitate understanding employee engagement. Many of the contemporary
researchers built their concepts of engagement from Kahn’s (1990) and Maslach et al.’s
(2001) works (Shuck and Wollard, 2010).
Robinson et al. (2004) Model of the Drivers of Employee Engagement

This approach to employee engagement, stresses the importance of 'feeling valued and
involved' as a key driver of engagement. Within this umbrella of feeling valued and
involved, there are a number of elements that cause a varying influence on the extent to
which the employee will feel valued and involved and hence engaged. Figure 1.3,
which is based on a diagnostic model, illustrates the drivers of engagement suggested
through a panorama of over 10,000 NHS employees. They state that this can be a useful
39
pointer to organizations towards those faces of working life that require serious
attention if engagement levels are to be maintained or improved.
Figure 2.2 - "Robinson et al. (2004) model of the drivers of employee engagement"
Although tested within the NHS, the writers suggest that many of the drivers of conflict
will be common to all organizations, irrespective of the sector. Engagement levels can
change according to demographic and job related factors. What is noted from the
example above is that some of these elements are what would be fundamental or
contractual requirements for the organisation (the 'hygiene' factors), such as pay and
benefits, health and safety, whereas others are the regions where the governing body
must 'go the extra mile' to ensure effective communication, management and
cooperation.
Penna (2006) Model of Hierarchy of Engagement

Penna presents a hierarchical model of employment factors (see number 1.4), which
illustrates the impact each stage will throw on the attraction, employment and retention
of natural endowment. They offer a model with "meaning at work" at the summit,
which they maintain is borne away by the inquiry carried out into meaning at work.. In
this context, Penna defines meaning at work as the situation where a job brings
fulfilment for the employee, through the employee being valued, appreciated, bearing a
sense of belonging and congruence with the scheme and where the employees feel like
they are making a contribution. In this example, as the hierarchy ascends and the
40
system successfully meets each of these engagement factors, the system becomes more
attractive to young potential employees and gets more absorbing to its surviving staff.
Figure 2.3 - Penna (2006) model of hierarchy of engagement
Interestingly in this model the 'hygiene' factors appear at the foundation of the model,
indicating the nature of these factors as a necessary, but not sufficient, building block
upon which the organisation must further develop in order to engage staff.
Schmidt (2004) Model of Organizational Dynamics in the Public Sector
This model (see figure 1.5) frames engagement within the context of organizational
health and Workplace Well-Being (WWB). Engagement is defined as the overarching
label that brings employee satisfaction and commitment together. This model highlights
the importance of commitment to the job as driven by job satisfaction, and also
highlights the importance of the supporting organisation. By creating the right
conditions to generate high levels of employee engagement, the organisation can drive
high performance - with high performance being defined as the achievement of the
overarching public sector goal of advancing the public good. The model depicts the
flow of organizational dynamics that begins with recruitment and moves through
support for work, to workplace well-being, to engage and finally to high levels of
organizational performance.
41
Figure 2.4 - Schmidt (2004) model of organizational dynamics in the public sector
This model means that the foundations of engagement lie in policies to recruit and
retain the right workforce (i.e. In conditions of employing specific competences,
knowledge and experiences needed for success every bit well as diversity) and to
promote health, safety, and wellbeing. Schmidt bases the model on an assortment of
written stories and writings, implicit in which is the notion that it is WWB that drives
participation. CIPD (2007) concurs with this notion of the importance of well-being,
stating that participation is 'wholly consistent' with a stress on employee welfare. In the
discussion, WWB itself is driven by dedication and job satisfaction, which in spell are
regulated by a number of genes. It is standardised to the idea presented in the model by
Robinson et al. (2004) were 'feeling valued and involved' was the key driver of
engagement, but in turn was influenced to a varying degree by a range of genes.
IES MODEL (Institute of Employment Studies) This example is grounded on the
factors which induce an employee valued and involved or employed. The model
suggests 10 factors divided as ‘factors at work’, ‘individual factors’ and ‘work-life
factors’ as contributors to date. The factor training, growth and career pertain in both
42
providing career development opportunities for personal development of an employee
as well as efficient management of natural endowment. The factor immediate
management has implications on the contribution of leadership in engaging employees;
it involves providing clarity on the company’s value, respectful treatment of employee
and both exhibiting & maintaining company’s standards of ethical conduct.
Training
Development &
Career
Immediate
Job satisfaction
Communication
Feeling
valued and
involved
Health and
Performance
Safety
Equal
Pay and opportunities
Benefits and fair
treatment
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Figure 2.5 – IES Model of employee engagement
Source - IES, 2003
The CIPD (2006) Model of Employee Engagement
A model produced by the CIPD and presented in the organization’s Employee Attitudes
and Engagement Survey' of 2006, brings various elements of employee engagement
together in one overarching model (see figure 1.8). This then formed the basis of the
survey, which was carried out across the private and public sectors. The model, which
illustrates the linkages and important factors in each of these elements, is provided
below, with arrows indicating directions of influence:
43
Figure 2.6 - The CIPD (2006) model of employee engagement
Individual factors are those such as gender, age, ethnicity and disability. Working life
describes factors such as occupation, hours of work and pay, as well as important issues
such as bullying or workplace harassment.
Management, leadership and communication refers to how employees view their
managers and leaders, how much opportunity they get, to participate in organizational
decision making and levels of trust. As CIPD highlights, these factors have been found,
through research, to be very important in determining levels of engagement. This is
also the area where managers can have an important influence.
Attitude to work refers to employees' perceptions of their jobs and includes levels of
well-being, satisfaction, enthusiasm, commitment and loyalty. It is important to note
here the two-way interaction in this model between attitudes to work and engagement.
Whilst satisfaction, commitment, stress and loyalty factors feed into levels of
engagement, it follows from the model that organizations that successfully engage their
employees will engender greater levels of job satisfaction and loyalty, for example.
The engagement box itself refers to the CIPD's (2006) three types of engagement -
cognitive, emotional and physical. Finally, in the model above, engagement and
44
attitudes to work lead to outcomes for the organization, in terms of individual
performance, intent to quit and absence levels. The model was used by the CIPD in
their annual attitude and engagement survey, with the finding that there is in fact a lot
that managers and leaders can do to drive up engagement. Levels of trust and
confidence in senior management and line managers were found to be 'disappointingly
low' in the survey, however CIPD cites this as an opportunity for managers to evaluate
how their own organisation compares with the national sample and to consider how
best to harness the engagement levels of their own workforce.
Sibson’s Model of Employee Engagement
Sibson’s (2006) research on employee engagement describes two common features in
organizations with high performance: knowing what to do and wanting to do the work
(see Figure 1.10). Employees, who know what to do, contribute successfully to the
organization’s goals. Employees who want to do the work gain satisfaction from their
jobs and are inspired to perform well. Both of these features are necessary to drive
performance and productivity (Sibson). In this model, employee engagement is specific
to the organization and to the work, and the measurable performance indicators will
depend on how employee engagement is defined.
Saks’s Multidimensional Approach

Another approach to employee engagement emerged from the multidimensional
perspective of employee engagement presented by Saks (2006). His theory was built on
the belief that engagement is developed through a social exchange theory (SET). Saks
defined employee engagement as “a distinct and unique construct consisting of
cognitive, emotional, and behavioural components that are associated with individual
role performance.” This definition embraced previous literature on engagement, and
introduced the suggestion that employee engagement was developed from cognitive
45
(Kahn, 1990; Maslach et al., 2001), emotional (Harter et al., 2002; Kahn, 1990), and
behavioural components (Harter et al., 2002; Maslach et al., 2001).
Following Kahn’s conceptualization of engagement (1990), this reflects the extent to
which employees are psychologically present during particular organizational role
performances. According to Saks (2006), the two main roles that most organizational
members perform are their own work role and their role as a member of an
organization. From this we can identify that Saks was the first one to present separate
states of engagement: job engagement (psychological presence in one’s job) and
organizational engagement (psychological presence in one’s organization) (Saks,
2006). Saks’s model was built on the potential antecedents drawn from Kahn’s (1990)
and Maslach et al.’s (2001) model (Saks, 2006). Saks’s findings indicate that even
though the two measures of engagement are related, they are distinct, as participants
showed significantly higher job engagement (M = 3.06), than organization engagement
(M = 2.88).
The results of testing engagement antecedents showed that the job characteristics (r =
37) and organizational support (r = 36) were significant predictors of job engagement.
Procedural justice (r = 18) and organizational support (r = 57) were significant
predictors of organization engagement (Saks, 2006).
Furthermore, it was shown that job and organization engagement are predictors of job
satisfaction (r = 0.26, r = 0.41), organizational commitment (r = 0.17, r = 0.59), and
intention to quit (r = 20.22, r = 20.31) and organizational citizenship behaviour directed
to the organization (r = 20, r = 30). Whereas, only organization engagement predicts
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour directed to the individual (r = 0.20) (Saks, 2006).
Unique variances and the fact that only organization engagement predicts
46
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour shows that there is a difference between job and
organizational engagement.
In general, Saks (2006) research suggested that the engagement can be experienced
emotionally and cognitively whilst being demonstrated behaviorally. Like Schaufeli et
al. (2002), Saks supported the view of engagement as absorption of resources the
employee has into the work they performed. This view linked Schaufeli et al. (2002),
Kahn (1990) and Harter et al. (2002) models, as they all agree that for engagement or
absorption to occur, employees need the physical, emotional and psychological
resources to successfully perform their work; – without this, employees eventually
disengage.
The Zinger model
David Zinger from David Zinger Associates, Canada, defines Employee Engagement as
the art and science of engaging people in authentic and recognized connections to
strategy, roles, performance, organization, community, relationship, customers,
development, energy, and well-being as we leverage, sustain, and transform our work
connections into results. In line with this definition, the model of Engagement proposed
by David, having 14 important elements is as follows:
Figure 2.7 - David Zinger Model The employee engagement elements and symbols
for each element:
47
David Zinger model is a pyramid with ten blocks starting at the top and going down the
pyramid from left to right. The blocks are named as achieve results, maximize
performance, path progress, build relationships, foster recognition, master moments,
leverage strengths, make meaning, enhance well being, and enliven energy.
The model can be used to foster engagement or enhance their own engagement by
leaders, managers, and supervisors.
Achieve Results
The first block in the pyramid is achieving results. It says that the first key to consider
when increasing employee engagement is, what results are you working to achieve and
how can you involve all employees in formulating and achieving those results.
Maximize Performance
Recognize valuable performances of employees. Offer feedback in such a way that the
employees act upon it. In order to optimize performance there is a need to blend
performance management with employee engagement.
Path Progress
Research has demonstrated that progress is the single biggest key to motivation and
engagement. The organizations need to structure work for progress in such a way as to
guard against the demoralizing and disengaging impact of setbacks.
Build Relationships
There is a need to focus on two “R’s” of engagement, results and relationships. The
efforts of employees must be diverted to achieve results while building relationships.
The fundamental aim of employees is to engage in their tasks while that of the
managers is to concentrate on the engagement of the people.
48
Foster Recognition
Without recognition workplaces are void of humanness. Letting your employees know
that the management is seeing them and thinking of them is very important. Authentic
recognition is much more than annual gala or occasional gift card for good behaviour.
Recognition for progress creates a strong multiplier for motivation and engagement.
Master Movements
Engagement resides in the moment. There should be a balance between challenge and
skills. Working in the moment also reduces stress.
Leverage Strengths
To bring out the strengths of employees, managers must be aware of their own
strengths. Powerful managers “spot” employees’ strengths and make strength training
a daily endeavour.
Make meaning
For work to sustain and enrich people it must be meaningful. Sense of meaningful
work instills a strong and rich intrinsic motivation. Meaningful progress is one of the
best actions of a workday.
Enhance Well-being
There is a need to find wellbeing inside of work. There are things that can be done
outside of work, but to promote and enhance well-being within work is becoming
increasingly important as mobile devices make work portable and 24/7. Toxic
workplaces poisoned with lack of respect or mutuality must be eliminated. The
managers must create a profound wellbeing where people leave work enriched rather
than depleted and deadened.
49
Enliven Energy
The raw material of engagement is energy. It takes energy to engage and authentic
engagement contributes to energy. Energy comes in a variety of forms mental,
emotional, physical, organizational and spiritual. One must strive towards mastery of
physical, mental, emotional and organizational energy.
RESEARCHING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Kahn 1990, One of the most significant studies of engagement was carried out by
Conceptually, Kahn began with the work of Goffman (1961) who proposed that,
“people’s attachment and detachment to their role varies” (Kahn 1990:694). However,
Kahn claimed that Goffman’s work concentrated on fleeting face-to-face encounters,
while a different concept was needed to fit organizational life, which is “ongoing,
emotionally charged, and psychologically complex” (Diamond and Allcorn 1985).
To gain further understanding of the different degrees of attachment individuals have
towards their roles, Kahn (1990) examined several disciplines. It was found that
psychologists (Freud 1922), sociologists (Goffman, 1961, Merton 1957) and group
theorists (Slater 1966, Smith and Berg 1987) had all accepted the notion that
individuals are naturally hesitant about being members of ongoing groups and systems.
As a result, they “seek to protect themselves from both isolation and engulfment by
alternately pulling away from and moving towards their memberships” (Kahn 1990).
The terms Kahn (1990) uses to describe these movements are ‘personal engagement’
and ‘personal disengagement’, which refer to the “behaviours by which people bring in
or leave out their personal selves during work role performances” (Kahn 1990:694).
These terms developed by Kahn (1990) put together previous ideas taken from
motivation theories that people need self-expression and self-employment in their work
lives as a matter of course (Alderfer 1972, Maslow 1954).
50
A qualitative study was undertaken by Kahn on the psychological conditions of
personal engagement and disengagement by interviewing summer camp counsellors
and staff at an architecture firm about their moments of engagement and disengagement
at work. He defined the term disengagement as the “decoupling of the self within the
role, involving the individual withdrawing and defending themselves during role
performances (May et al 2004)”. Disengaged employees exhibited incomplete role
performances and were effortless, automatic or robotic (Kahn 1990). Kahn found that
there were 3 psychological conditions impacting engagement or disengagement at
work: meaningfulness, safety, and availability. He claimed that people asked
themselves 3 basic questions in each role situation: (i) How meaningful is it for me to
bring myself into this performance; (ii) How safe is it to do so?; and (iii) How available
am I to do so? He found that workers were more engaged at work in situations that
offered them more psychological meaningfulness and psychological safety, and when
they were more psychologically available.
In the only study to empirically test Kahn’s (1990) model, May et al (2004) found that
meaningfulness, safety, and availability were indeed significantly related to
engagement. They also discovered that job enrichment and role fit were positive
predictors of meaningfulness; rewarding co-worker and supportive supervisor relations
were positive predictors of safety, whereas adherence to co-worker norms and self-
consciousness were negative predictors. The resources were a positive predictor of
psychological availability, while participation in outside activities was a negative
predictor. Overall, meaningfulness was found to have the strongest connect with
different employee outcomes in terms of engagement.
Maslachet al 2001, Another alternative model of engagement was stated in the
‘burnout’ literature, which states job engagement as the positive antithesis of burnout,
51
noting that burnout involves the erosion of engagement with one’s job (According to
Maslachet al,6 aspects of work-life lead to either burnout or engagement: workload,
control, rewards and recognition, community and social support, perceived fairness and
values. They claim that job engagement is associated with a sustainable workload,
feelings of choice and control, appropriate recognition and reward, a supportive work
community, fairness and justice, and meaningful and valued work. Like burnout,
engagement is expected to mediate the link between these 6 work-life factors and
various work outcomes. May et al’s (2004) findings support Maslachetal’s (2001) idea
of meaningful and valued work being associated with engagement, and therefore it is
important to consider the term ‘meaning’.
Holbeche and Springett (2003), people’s perceptions of ‘meaning’ with reference to
the workplace are clearly linked to their levels of engagement and, finally, their
performance. They claim that employees actively seek meaning through their work and,
if organizations fail to provide a sense of meaning, employees may quit. The research
findings suggest that around 70% people experience a greater search for meaning in the
workplace than in life in general (Ibid). There are different reasons for this, for
example, it can be because people generally spend longer at work than in other parts of
their lives. Holbeche and Springett (2003) claim that high levels of engagement can
only be achieved in workplaces where there is a shared feeling of destiny and purpose
that relates people at an emotional level and raises their personal aspirations.
Kahn’s (1990) and Maslachetal’s (2001), models indicate the psychological
conditions or prerequisites that are necessary for engagement, but they do not
completely explain why individuals will respond to these conditions with different
levels of engagement. According to Saks (2006), a stronger theoretical rationale for
explaining employee engagement is found in the social exchange theory (SET). SET
52
claims that obligations are generated through a chain of interactions between parties
who are in a state of reciprocal interdependence. A basic principle of SET is that
relationships evolve over time into trusting, loyal, and mutual commitments as long as
the parties abide by certain conditions of exchange (Cropanzano and Mitchell 2005).
Such conditions seem to involve reciprocity or repayment rules, so that the actions of
one party lead to a response or actions of the other party. For example, when
individuals receive economic and social-emotional resources of their organization, they
feel obliged to reciprocate in kind and repay the organization (Ibid). This is consistent
with Robinson et al’s (2004) description of engagement as a mutual relationship
between the employer and employee.
Saks (2006) claim that a way for individuals to repay their organization is through their
level of engagement. Putting it differently, employees will choose to engage themselves
to varying degrees and in response to the resources they receive from their
organization. Bringing oneself more fully into one’s work roles and giving greater
amounts of cognitive, emotional, and physical resources is a very profound way for
individuals to reciprocate to an organization’s actions, as suggested earlier by the work
of Kahn (1990). Thus, employees are more likely to exchange their engagement for
resources and benefits they receive from their organization.
In short, SET provides a theoretical basis to explain why employees choose to become
more or less engaged in their work and organization. In terms of Kahn’s (1990)
definition of engagement, employees feel obliged to bring themselves more deeply into
their role performances as repayment for the resources their organization has given to
them. When the organizations are unable to provide these resources, individuals are
likely to withdraw and disengage themselves from their roles. Thus, the amount of
cognitive, emotional, and physical resources that an individual is prepared to devote to
53
the performance of their work role may be dependent on the economic and social-
emotional resources received from the organization.
ANTECEDENTS AND EFFECTS OF ENGAGEMENT (OUTCOMES OF EE)
Saks 2006, in recent years, more studies have begun to look at the antecedents and
consequences of employee engagement. For instance, Saks (2006) found a difference
between 2 types of engagement, job engagement and organization engagement, which
he claims are related but distinct terms. Further, he claimed that the relationships
between both job and organization engagement, and their antecedents and
consequences vary in a number of ways, indicating that the psychological conditions
that lead to job and organization engagement, as well as their consequences, is
different. Whilst this study has provided a new dimension and insight into employee
engagement, it is worth remembering that the study was completed by a small sample
of 102 employees in Canada. Therefore, the results may not be generalizable to
employees in India, for example, as definitions of engagement vary in different
countries and national differences do play a part in what leads to engagement in the
first place. Still, it adds a new insight into the existing body of literature as it is the first
study to differentiate between job and organization engagement and to measure a
variety of antecedents and consequences of job and organization engagement; research
prior to this has focused primarily on engagement at the individual level.
Practitioners and academics seem to agree that the consequences of employee
engagement are positive (Saks 2006). There is a common belief that there is a
connection between employee engagement and business results; a meta-analysis
conducted by Harter et al (2002:272) confirms this relationship. They concluded that,
“… employee satisfaction and engagement relate to meaningful business outcomes at a
magnitude that is important to many organizations”. However, engagement is an
54
individual-level phenomenon and if it does lead to business results, it must first
influence individual-level outcomes. Therefore, there is reason to believe that employee
engagement is related to individuals’ attitudes, intentions, and behaviours. Even though
neither Kahn (1990) nor May et al (2004) included outcomes in their respective studies,
Kahn (1992) claimed that high levels of engagement lead to both positive outcomes for
individuals, (e.g. quality of people’s work & their own experiences of doing that work),
as well as positive organization-level outcomes (e.g. the growth & productivity of
organizations).
The Gallup Organization (2004) found important links between employee
engagement, customer loyalty, business growth &profitability. They carried a
comparison of the scores of these variables among a sample of stores scoring in the top
25 percent on employee engagement and customer loyalty with those in the bottom 25
per cent. Stores in the lowest 25 percent, significantly under-performed across 3
productivity measures: sales, customer complaints and turnover. Gallup quotes
numerous similar examples. The International Survey Research (ISR) team has also
found encouraging evidence that organizations can only achieve their full potential
through emotionally engaging employees and customers (ISR 2005).
Ott 2007 quotes Gallup research, which found that higher workplace engagement
predicts higher earnings per share (EPS) among publicly-traded businesses. When
compared with industry competitors at the company level, organizations with greater
than 4 engaged employees for every 1 actively disengaged, experienced 2.6 times more
growth in EPS than did organizations with a ratio of slightly less than 1 engaged
worker for every 1 actively disengaged employee. The findings can be considered as
significant as the variability in different industries was controlled by comparing each
55
company to its competition, and the patterns across time for EPS were explored due to
a ‘bouncing’ rise or fall which is common in EPS (Ott 2007).
Whilst this research does not show investors and business leaders exactly what engage
employees, the findings do demonstrate differences in overall performance between
companies, and Gallup’s meta-analyses present sound evidence that highly engaged
workgroups within companies are better performers that groups with lower employee
engagement levels, and the recent findings reinforce these conclusions at the
Workgroup level. The meta-analysis study shows that businesses with higher
engagement levels have better performance matrices - top-quartile business units have
12 percent higher customer advocacy, 18 per cent higher productivity, and 12 percent
higher profitability than bottom-quartile business units. On the other hand, bottom-
quartile business units experience 31 per cent to 51 per cent more employee turnover
and 62 per cent more accidents than those in the top quartile of workplace engagement.
The study of EPS provides a strong evidence that employee engagement correlates to
crucial business outcomes.
Harter et al., 2002; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Hallberg and Schaufeli, 2006), who
have presented evidence that engagement has an influence on an employees’ intentions
to quit. Right Management (2006) found that 75% of engaging employees planned to
stay with the organization for at least five years, whilst only 44% of non-engaged
employees planned to stay.
Levinson (2007) suggests that employees who are happy in their work are more likely
to stay in the organization, and Demourouti et al. (2001) in their literature review found
that employee engagement is indeed positively related to organizational commitment.
56
Blessing White (2008) reports that 85 percent of engaging employees plan to “stick
around” in comparison to 27 percent of disengaged employees. In addition, 41 percent
of engaging employees said that they would stay if the organization were struggling to
survive.
Gallup (2006) compared top quartile and bottom quartile financial performance with
engagement scores. They found that those with engagement scores in the bottom
quartile averaged 31 – 51 percent more employee turnover.
The Corporate Leadership Council CLC’s (2004) found 87 percent of employees less
likely to leave the organization, which indicates the significance of employee
engagement to organizational performance. The Corporate Leadership Council (2008)
reported that highly engaged organizations have the potential to reduce staff turnover
by 87 percent and improve performance by 20 percent.
Thus, the outcomes of EE can be summarized as – Organizational outcomes and
Employee outcomes. Organizational outcomes are Organizational performance,
Employee retention, Employee productivity, Profits, Customer loyalty, advocacy of
organisation, manager self-efficacy, successful organizational change, and
organizational climate. Employee outcomes are clarifying expectations, health and
well-being, correlation with innovation etc.
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ACROSS REGIONS AND INDUSTRIES
It is worthwhile considering how employee engagement levels differ across
occupations, industries and globally. Most of the available international evidence
comes from Gallup, which has conducted Employee Engagement Index surveys in
many countries. We would claim that cross-national comparisons of stories of
employee engagement should be handled with some caution due to cultural and
57
definitional differences. Nevertheless, it is interesting to reexamine some of the
findings of Gallup’s surveys.
In 2005, a study in Thailand revealed only 12 per cent of Thailand’s employed
population are ‘engaged’, 82 per cent are ‘actively disengaged’ and 6 per cent
disengaged. Similar Gallup surveys have found the levels of engagement in Australia,
China, Japan, New Zealand and Singapore to be 18 per cent, 12 per cent, 9 per cent, 17
per cent and 9 per cent respectively (Gallup 2004).
The subject field of employee engagement on a worldwide level is worthwhile given
the increasing number of MNCs (multi-national corporations) and utilization of
outsourcing. It is interesting to notice whether or not the same engagement techniques
work for employees in countries with different economic systems and civilizations. In
2004, International Survey Research (ISR), the international research consultancy,
conducted a major study into the nature and reasons of employee participation and how
societies can improve engagement to enhance job operation. The subject was conducted
across ten of the world’s biggest economies - Australia, Brazil, Canada, France,
Germany, Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Singapore, the UK and the USA, affecting
about 160,000 employees from across a wide spectrum of industries. The survey
highlights large variations among the 10 states in terms of employees’ overall
commitment to, and engagement with their employers. For example, in Brazil and in
the US, 75 per cent of employees were found to be engaged with their companies,
whilst only 59 percent of French employees were engaged. The research pointed out
that one size does not fit all when it comes to motivating employees to rent with their
companionship and workplace. For instance, in Australia, Singapore, and Hong Kong,
the extent to which company management is respected came out as an influential
component of employment. In the UK and US, on the other hand, a most important
58
element was the extent to which organizations provide long-term employment and
career opportunities.
Evidence from the USA (Johnson 2004) found out that approximately half of all
Americans in the workforce are not fully engaged or they are disengaged. Furthermore,
a Global Workforce Survey conducted in 2005 by consulting firm Towers Perrin found
disconcerting findings, again in the USA (Seijts and Crim 2006). The study involved
nearly 85,000 people who went full-time for big and mid-sized firms; it found only 14
per cent of all employees worldwide was highly engrossed in their business. The survey
also indicated that on a country-by-country basis, the percentages of highly engaged,
moderately engaged, and actively disengaged employees differed considerably.
Moreover, the results showed some interesting, perhaps counterintuitive, findings. For
example, Mexico and Brazil have the highest percentages of engaged employees, while
Japan and Italy have the largest percentages of disengaged employees.
It is claimed that global research will help employers gauge their employees’ level of
engagement against the standard of their own country (ISR 2004). Previous research
(Hofstede 1997) has demonstrated that organisations must adjust to different cultural
values and norms when it comes to attracting, motivating and keeping staff. ISR’s
(2004) study indicated four issues as global elements in managing engagement; career
development, leadership, empowerment, and image (which signifies the company’s
image to customers and the public). Career development was found to impact
engagement for employees in each of the 10 nations examined, with an important
message being organizations with high degrees of engagement provides employees
with opportunities to develop their abilities, learn new skills, gain new knowledge and
realise their potential. The principle behind this is that when companies invest in their
citizenry in this direction, their people invest in them.
59
The research also identified the want for empowerment; employees need to be involved
in determinations that affect their workplace. It was found that managers of high-
engagement workplaces do not create fear or blame cultures, where employees are
fearful to state their ideas or exercise their initiative. Rather, they produce an
environment of trust and challenging surroundings, in which employees are encouraged
to contribute feedback and innovate to bring the organisation ahead.
A useful comparison between a sort of demographic segments, from job level (senior
executive, director/manager, supervisor/foreman, specialist/professional, non-
management salaried and non-management, hourly) to industry category (non-profit,
high tech, heavy manufacturing, insurance, pharmaceuticals, hospital and finance/
banking) was taken out by researchers at Towers Perrin (2003), who found a figure
across the sections. Each group received only a diminished group of highly engaged
respondents, a slightly bigger disengaged group, with the majority in the ‘moderately
engaged group’.
Yet, in each case there was an interesting exception to the pattern worth noting; senior
executives were found to be more highly engaged than any other group and were less
probable to be disengaged. Sceptics might think that this may be tied to income level
and, while this certainly emerged as significant in this work, it was not the only
contributory factor. More important factors were role characteristics, such as challenge,
government agency, autonomy, stimulation, access to information, resources and
growth opportunities, that research has presented are related to high degrees of
participation. The least levels of battle have been found among hourly workers, who
arguably have the least control or influence over their tasks and workplace experience.
60
Across industries, engagement is much higher in the non-profit sector than in every
other sector looked at by Towers Perrin (2003). This seems quite consistent, given that
people tend to be attracted to this sector through a sense of missionary work, rather than
from any scene of higher earnings or wealth accumulation. This finding is also in
occupation with the numerous definitions & views surrounding engagement, which
distinguishes a ‘passion for work’ as being a key component factor (Truss et al 2006,
Brim 2002 and Holbeche and Springett 2003). Indeed, the fact that the sector is
traditionally not a high-paying one, relative to the others studied, emphasizes the fact
that it is not possible to ‘buy’ engagement in the conventional sense by providing safer
than average monetary awards. On the other hand, in another study comparing the
public and individual sectors, Truss et al (2006) found that group in the public sector
had a more negative experience of employment, they reported more bullying and
harassment than those in the private sector, and were less filled with the opportunities
they had to employ their powers. This supports the findings of former fields and
emphasizes the scale of the challenge facing public sector managers in particular, and
the negative impact that bullying and harassment have on employees and their layers of
engagement (Emmott 2006).
STUDYING RELATIONSHIP OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES WITH
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Today we count of how engagement levels may be related to individual differences by
studying literature from the psychology area.
McCashland 1999, Miles 2001 and Harter et al 2003, there are various and
contradictory definitions of employee conflict in the psychological literature. Some
definitions state that employee engagement is something that is produced by aspects in
the work (as suggested by McCashland 1999, Miles 2001 and Harter et al 2003), while
61
others swear that it is something that the person brings to the workplace (as suggested
by Harter et al 2002 and Goddard 1999). In other words, there are 2 diagonally opposite
views – one is that it is something determined by external variables and the second one
is that it is something that is a part and parcel of the soul. Outside components such as
individual differences may not be superficial and could cause substantial effects
(Ferguson 2007).
Kahn 1990, there is good evidence in the literature to support the notion that individual
differences impact work performance. Kahn (1990), for instance, argued that
psychological differences may influence an individual’s ability to engage or disengage
in their role performance, just as they influence a person’s ability and willingness to be
involved or committed at work. Thus, people would engage differently “given their
experiences of psychological meaningfulness, safety and availability in specific
situations” (Kahn 1990:718). For instance, when people experience situations as
unsafe, it is a matter of individual choice as to what coping strategies they deploy, and
the extent to which they engage or disengage (Portello 1996).
Robinson 2006, Further, it is claimed that individual differences play a vital role in
determining an employee’s potential level of engagement (Robinson 2006). The
process of perception is an important factor in individual behaviour.
Buchanan and Huczynski (2004:215) define perception as “the dynamic
psychological process responsible for attending to, organizing and interpreting sensory
data”. To a large extent, perception relates to the way in which individuals make sense
of their environment and interpret and respond to the events and people around them.
Equally, it is important to highlight that each individual receives information
differently. This is because people do not receive information about what is happening
62
around them passively and dispassionately or in the same way as others do. According
to Robinson (2006) individuals categorize and make sense of events and situations
according to their own typical and personal frame of reference, which is a reflection of
their personality, past experiences, knowledge, expectations and current needs,
priorities and interests.
Bowditch and Buono (2001:46), Personality is a major influence on the process of
perception. Suggest that, “our personality acts as a kind of perceptual filter or frame of
reference which influences our view of the world”. Therefore, it is claimed that it is our
personal perception of our own social and physical environment that shapes and directs
how engaged an employee is, rather than some objective understanding of an external
reality.
May et al 2004. It has also been claimed that employee engagement is linked to
emotional experiences and wellbeing (May et al 2004). Despite this, studies of
organizations often overlook the impact on behaviour of feelings and emotions.
Emotions are a natural feature of our psychological make-up and impacts not only
individuals’ personal lives, but also their behaviour at work. Wilson (2004:99-100)
claims that “feelings connect us with our realities and provide internal feedback on how
we are doing, what we want and what we might do next… Being in organizations
involves us in worry, envy, hurt, sadness, boredom, excitement and other emotions.”
Towers Perrin (2003) study of engagement identified both emotions and rationality as
core elements. They found that emotional factors are linked to an individual’s personal
satisfaction and the sense of inspiration and affirmation they get from their work and
from being a part of their organization. For instance, a key factor here is having a sense
of personal accomplishment from one’s job. On the other hand, the rational factors
63
generally relate to the relationship between the individual and the broader corporation,
for instance the extent to which employees understand their role and their unit’s role,
relative to company objectives. It was found that scores for key aspects of rational
engagement (such as I ‘understand how my role relates to company goals and
objectives’ and ‘I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally
expected’) are generally greater than those for emotional engagement (such as, I ‘would
say my company is a good place to work’ and ‘am proud to work for my company’).
However, looking deeper into the more emotional aspects of working, a different
picture emerges. Just under67% of the respondents in the Towers Perrin survey agreed
their company is a good place to work, and even fewer (50% of the respondents) agreed
their company inspires them to do their best work. According to research, this is where
the influence of employee dissatisfaction is found, with various aspects of their work
experience, such as overwhelming workloads, distant and non-communicative senior
leadership, and the lack of developmental opportunities (Towers Perrin 2003). This
shows the importance of management actions in determining levels of employee
engagement.
According to Towers Perrin (2003), creating engagement is a process that never ends
and it depends on the foundation of a meaningful and emotionally enriching work
experience. Further, it is not about making people happy, or even paying them more
money. As important as monetary factors are in attracting and retaining people, it was
found they play a less important role in engaging people in their work. The factors
found to be important for engagement were strong leadership, accountability,
autonomy, a sense of control over one’s environment and opportunities for
development; there are no substitutes for these basic factors.
64
Moore, 2004; Crabtree, 2005, Personal relationships have also been found to
influence work engagement. Recent research has found that family stress and work-
related stress may be linked with each other (Moore, 2004; Crabtree, 2005). A Gallup
study asked employees, whether they had 3 or more days in the past month when work
stress caused them to behave poorly with their family or friends. The findings indicated
51 percent of actively disengaged employees say yes, compared to 35 percent of not-
engaged employees and 18 percent of engaging employees. Relationships at the
workplace have also been found to have an influence on ‘meaningfulness’, which as we
saw earlier, relates to engagement (May et al 2004). Locke and Taylor (1990)
recognized the relatedness needs individuals possess, arguing individuals who have
rewarding interpersonal interactions with their co-workers also should experience
greater meaning in their work. Kahn (1990) also suggested that relations with
customers, for some individuals (e.g. Camp counsellors) may play a role in providing a
meaningful work experience.
Rothbard 1999, Differences in the Gender have also been found, such that men
experience enrichment from work, to family, while women experience depletion from
work to family. While women experience enrichment from family to work, men on the
other hand, experience no links from family to work (Rothbard 1999). Further, Gallup’s
US research concluded that women tend to find more fulfilment in their jobs and are
more engaged than men are (Johnson 2004). However, no clear differences were found
between engagement levels of Thai men and women (Ibid).
Gallup did observe an interesting difference between employees who are single and
those who are married. It was found that married employees seem to have a higher level
of engagement than the ones who are single. This indicates that these employees have
come to point where they are more settled in both their personal and professional lives.
65
Another interesting difference related to gender is that female managers or supervisors
tend to have a higher percentage of actively disengaged workers than male managers
do. Differences of health and personal values may also influence employee engagement
such that some people ‘work to live’, while others ‘live to work’. Differences of ability,
skills and dispositions variables are also expected to influence levels of engagement.
However, the most crucial finding is that it is the way in which people are managed that
has the most significant influence on engagement levels (Truss et al, 2006).
Robinson (2006), employee engagement can be achieved through the creation of an
organizational environment where positive emotions such as involvement and pride are
promoted, resulting in improved organizational performance, lower employee turnover
and better health. West (2005) claims that when individuals are filled with positive
emotions, they are able to think in a more flexible, open-minded way and are also likely
to feel greater self-control, cope more effectively and be less defensive in the
workplace.
Emotions can also be linked to wellbeing (Robinson 2006). Some of the clearest
evidence on wellbeing and employee health is evident in the research of the Roffey
Park Institute (RPI). The RPI shares the belief of various authors who start a potential
causal relationship between a more holistic approach to management, one that takes
into account emotions and deepest needs of people, and improved business
performance. Cooper (1997) argues that research shows that if emotions are properly
handled instead of shutting them out at work, they can drive trust, loyalty and
commitment and great productivity gains by individuals, teams and organizations.
Heimer (1999), claims that innovation, increased profitability, good decision-making
and effective performance are brought about by emotions that are deftly handled by
66
managers (Holbeche and Springett 2003). Other studies have found clear links between
the work lives in individual health (Crabtree, 2005). The importance of wellbeing is
further reiterated by researchers at Towers Perrin (2003) who found that the most
important factor of engagement was senior management’s interest in employee
wellbeing. But, only 42% of respondents agreed their senior management showed an
interest in this. Job types that were more likely to be physically demanding, such as
service workers, skilled tradesmen, semi-skilled workers and labourers, were isolated to
enable a comparison to be made between physically demanding and non-physically
demanding roles. Interestingly, this differentiation yielded a little difference, 43 percent
of workers in physically demanding roles stated their day-to-day jobs affect their
physical health positively, as did 43 percent of those more likely to have desk jobs.
Whilst differentiating job types revealed no apparent differences, significant differences
were found between employees according to their engagement level, regardless of job
type. Among engaged employees, a clear majority, 62%, feels their work lives
positively affect their physical health. The number drops to 39% among not-engaged
employees and 22% among the actively disengaged. More problematic is the fact that a
majority of actively engaged employees (54%) say they think their work lives are
having a negative effect on their physical health. However, the figures were slightly
better concerning psychological wellbeing, with 52% of employees stating their work
lives positively affect their home lives; this number increased to 78% for engaging
employees. Research on wellbeing and engagement leads to the obvious question; what
is the link between engagement with one’s job and one’s health? Crabtree (2005) notes
that correlation does not necessarily mean causality. It may be quite possible that those
who feel their jobs positively affect their health are simply more optimistic overall and
are therefore more likely to be engaged in their work. Nevertheless, this does not
67
change the inference that engaged employees are more likely than others to view their
jobs as healthy.
Schaufeli and Bakker 2004, the effect of engagement has been described as a
fulfilling, positive work-related experience and state of mind (Schaufeli and Bakker
2004), and has been found to be related to good health and positive work affect
(Sonnentag 2003). These positive experiences and emotions are likely to lead to
positive work outcomes. An individual’s expressed intention to quit their organization
is generally regarded as a significant indication of how they are feeling about their
work. As noted by Schaufeli and Bakker (2004), engaged employees are likely to have
a greater attachment to their organization and a lower tendency to leave. The findings
from Truss et al (2006) supports this. They found that, overall, engaged employees are
less likely to quit their jobs. But, the longer employees stay with an organization, the
less engaged, they appear to become (Ferguson 2007). The findings of the 2006 CIPD
study on engagement confirm this also (Truss et al 2006). Such studies emphasize the
importance of continually advancing the understanding of engagement in the
workplace.
Overall, research has found that employee engagement is on the decline and there is a
growing disengagement among employees today (Bates 2004 and Richman 2006). A
study by the Gallup organization based on a large sample of the UK workforce
(Buckingham 2001), identified 3 clear categories of employees; engaged, non-engaged
and actively disengaged. The findings indicated the majority (63%) of employees fell
into the ‘non-engaged employees’ category. These employees were characterized as
being productive in the sense of doing what they were told to do, but were not mentally
bonded with the organization. Furthermore, employees in this category were
instrumentally motivated; they could be lured by job vacancies elsewhere and were
68
responsive to financial incentives, but sceptical about higher-order appeals to loyalty.
Of the sample, 17% fell into the ‘engaged employees’ category; these employees were
characterized as being committed, loyal, protective and task-effective. Actively
disengaged employees formed the remaining 20% of the sample and comprised
employees who were physically present, but mentally absent. These employees
demonstrated attitudes and behaviours and that were negative, non-cooperation and
even hostility. Clearly, these findings show that there is room for employers to engage
in positive management actions to raise engagement levels in their workforce.
Buckingham (2001:37) such employees (the actively dis-engaged) were “intent on
sharing with colleagues the many reasons for which they believe their organization is
such a rotten place to work”. The study also found that the longer employees remained
in an organization, the more disengaged they became. Similarly, researchers at Gallup
(Brim 2002) and Truss et al (2006) identified a negative relationship between employee
engagement, or the degree to which a worker is fulfilled by his or her job, and the
tenure of service. According to Brim (2002) such evidence indicates that for most of
the employees, the 1styear of the job is their best and thereafter it is ‘downhill’. One
challenge for employers is to find ways of renewing employees’ engagement levels
throughout the tenure of their employment.
This finding was a bit surprising; it was expected by Gallup researchers that the feeling
of belonging over time with new hires expected to be tentative. Clearly, the negative
relationship between engagement and length of service indicates a disconnect between
how organizations intend to treat their workers and how workers feel about their jobs.
Brim (2002) argues, instead of making the most of the strengths of employees,
organizations continually remind employees of their weaknesses through training
69
programmes that focus on fixing an employee’s limitations, which in turn can lead to a
disengaged workforce.
Many commentators argue that employee engagement is influenced not only by
individual differences, but also by socio-cultural factors as well (Ferguson 2007). The
climate and culture of an organization are expected to influence levels of engagement.
Climate includes dimensions such as systems and satisfaction with the organization;
culture includes dimensions such as a community (Schein 1987). The use of
outsourcing and virtual workstations and teams has increased drastically in recent
years. However, there is a need for future research to establish exactly how such
changes in culture and climate affect employee engagement.
To sum up, the research suggests that despite the existence of common drivers of
engagement, different groups and individuals are influenced by different factors. The
literature in the field of individual differences is clearly divided. While some suggest
that engagement is produced by aspects in the workplace, others suggest that
engagement is something that the individual brings to the workplace. Further, it is
argued that an individual’s personality and perception, that is, the way in which they
see the world, shapes and directs how engaged an employee would be. Emotions and
wellbeing have also been found to be linked to engagement, however many studies
overlook the importance of these 2 concepts. The individual differences which affect
engagement also influence outcome variables such as intention to quit and create
differences in how various groups, for example men and women, are engaged. All said
and done, all the research has shown that there is a lot that employers can do to raise
levels of engagement, and that all employees, regardless of demographic aspects, have
the potential to be engaged in their work.
70
STUDYING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYEE INVOLVEMENT AND
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Purcell et al (2003), argues that employees are ‘engaged’ if they have a positive
attitude towards work; others, such as Purcell et al (2003) suggest that employee
engagement is only meaningful if there is a real sharing of responsibility between
management and employees over matters that are significant. The CIPD survey
conducted by Truss et al (2006) suggests that improving employee voice can make a
difference to organizational performance.
Lucas et al 2006, Employee voice can be defined as the opportunity for employees to
have an input into decisions that are made in organizations (Lucas et al 2006). It has
been claimed that one of the main influencing factors of employee engagement is for
employees to have the opportunity to feed their view upwards (Truss et al 2006). Their
study concluded that currently many organizations are not so successful in doing this
and as a result, many employees feel that they lack opportunities to express their views
and be involved in decisions. On the other hand, researchers at Towers Perrin (2003)
found employers are doing quite well in giving employees the freedom to make
decisions relating to their jobs; 62% of respondents stated they have a reasonable
amount of decision-making authority to do their job well.
Robinson 2006 suggests there is considerable evidence that many employees are
greatly under-utilized in the workplace due to the lack of involvement in work-based
decisions. Employee involvement is seen as a core part of ‘soft’ HRM, where the focus
is upon capturing the ideas of employees and securing their commitment (Beardwell
and Claydon 2007). The concept of employee involvement is strongly related to
unitarist views of organizations, as it believes that managers and employees have the
71
same interests. Researchers have claimed that employee involvement has management
firmly in control and very limited real influence is given to employees (Ibid).
Hyman and Mason (1995), argue that employee involvement programs “extend little
or no input into the corporate or higher level decision making” and generally do not
entail any significant sharing of power and authority. Similarly, Blyton and Turnbull
(2004:272) claim that employee involvement is ‘soft on power’. However, Purcell et
al’s (2003) study found involvement in decisions affecting the job or work to be a key
factor, which was strongly associated with high levels of employee engagement thus
demonstrating it is an important factor.
In any work activity or situation, employees have some choice and discretion over how
they perform their tasks and responsibilities (Robinson 2006).
Appelbaumet al (2005:25), claim that, “in any formal system of work controls, some
effort remains that workers contribute at their discretion”. The behaviours required by a
work role can be clearly defined and offer little choice in the way the work is done as in
the case of an assembly line operative required to routinely and repetitively perform a
simple set of tasks. On the other hand, work role behaviours can command the use of a
considerable amount of discretion in the way the job is performed as in the case of
senior managers (Robinson 2006). As per Fox (1974), ‘Taylorism’ and ‘scientific
management’ focused on limited discretion. Such methods of managing employees
involved splitting down jobs into simple component elements, prescribing the way in
which tasks were performed, providing close supervision and bureaucratic rules and
regulations which served to create a mutually reinforcing cycle of low trust relations.
Yet, Fox (1974) claimed that despite an elaborate external controlling structure being in
place, no role can be totally diffuse or totally specific; even in jobs that are tightly
72
controlled, some outstanding element of discretion always remains. In cases where
employees have been given reasonable control over how they do their jobs, positive
benefits have appeared to emerge. For instance, previous research in the UK has looked
at job redesign and the impact this has had on engagement. In 1990 research was
carried out by the University of Sheffield on factory workers and the number of injuries
they reported given the differing levels of control over their work (Beardwell and
Claydon 2007). It was found that, after the workers were given the training and
freedom to make repairs to their own equipment rather than having to call a supervisor
every time they experienced a problem, they reported lesser occupational injuries. This
suggests that workers who feel they have control over their destiny at work, a key
aspect of employee engagement, are more likely to stay focused and less likely to make
mistakes.
Management control is seen as a hindrance to an employees’ perception of safety,
which has been found to be one of three psychological conditions affecting engagement
at work (May et al 2004). According to Deci and Ryan (1987) management that
promotes a supportive work environment typically displays concern for employees’
needs and feelings, provides positive feedback and encourage them to voice their
concerns, develops new skills and solve work-related problems. People who are self-
determined experiencing a “sense of choice in initiating and regulating one’s own
actions” (Ibid: 580). Therefore, these individuals are likely to feel safer to engage
themselves more fully, try out different ways of doing things and discuss mistakes
(Edmondson 1999). Where management is supportive of an employee’s self-
determination, the trust between the two parties increases (Deci and Ryan 1987). Given
that managers have a tremendous influence on employee engagement, levels can differ
significantly from workgroup to workgroup within one company (Ott 2007). Gallup’s
73
research has shown that leaders and managers play a key role in pushing engagement
levels.
Research in the UK, based on an electronic survey of 2,000 employees from across the
UK, found that only 35% of employees were actively engaged in their work (Truss et al
2006). A significant majority had quite a low opinion of their senior managers, with
only a third believing them as trustworthy. The research clearly shows that whilst
senior managers can make a real difference to people’s working lives and performance,
many have issues related to visibility, communication and employee involvement.
Robinson et al (2004) identified key behaviours, which were found to be related to
employee engagement. The behaviours included trust in the organization, desire to
work to make things better, understanding of the business context and the ‘bigger
picture’, being respectful of and helpful to colleagues, willingness to ‘go the extra mile’
and keeping updated with developments in the field. Further, the research found that
employee engagement was closely related to feelings and perceptions around being
valued and involved, and that the key factors that influenced engagement included
effective leadership, two-way communication, high levels of internal co-operation, a
focus on employee development, a commitment to employee wellbeing and clear,
accessible human resources policies and practices to which managers at all levels were
committed.
Konrad 2006, Latest research suggests that high-involvement work practices can
develop the positive beliefs and attitudes associated with employee engagement, and
that these practices can generate the kinds of discretionary behaviours that lead to
enhanced performance (Konrad 2006). High involvement organizations use “a system
of management practices giving their employees' skills, information, motivation, and
74
latitude and resulting in a workforce that is a source of competitive advantage” (Guthrie
2001:181).
Lawler and Worley (2006), for a high-involvement work practice to be effective and
for it to create a positive impact on employee engagement, employees must be given
power. They claim that this will lead to employees having the ability to make decisions
that are important to their performance and to the quality of their working lives, thus
engaging them in their work. Further, Lawler and Worley (2006) claim that power can
mean a relatively low level of influence, as in providing input into decisions made by
others or it can mean having final authority and accountability for decisions and their
outcomes. Involvement is enhanced when the highest possible level of power is pushed
down to the employees that have to carry out the decision, resulting in gaining the
maximum level of engagement possible from employees.
Purcell et al’s (2003), the study found a number of factors to be strongly associated
with high levels of employee engagement. One thing that all of these factors had in
common was that they were connected with an employee’s involvement in a practice
related to their work. For example, effective communications were found to be a factor
as engagement levels were affected by the amount of information employees received
about the performance of the company and how they contributed to the company
achieving its business objectives. Further, employees having involvement in decisions’
affecting their job or work was also associated with high levels of engagement.
Cufaude 2004, it is quite clear that employee engagement also depends on the manager
or supervisor. Cufaude (2004) argues that when a manager uses a philosophy of
‘servant-leadership’, whereby a manager’s primary role is in supporting and serving
those around them, the environment becomes ‘highly engaged’. Soltis (2004) claims
75
that in order to create a highly engaged environment manager must be engaged; “if
managers aren’t engaged it is unlikely employees will respond to any efforts to engage
them” (p2). Research has demonstrated that employee engagement tends to be based on
factors such as the relationship they have with their managers (Blizzard 2003). Yet
other theorists claim that employee engagement depends on promoting empowerment
and that jobs should fit the employees’ interests (Lloyd 2004 and MacDonald 2002).
To sum up, the literature surrounding employee involvement strongly suggests that at
the root of employee disengagement is poor management, whereby employees do not
have good working relationships with their managers and are denied the opportunity to
communicate and have some power in decision-making, let alone receive information
from their managers. Employees need support of managers who care and who are seen
to be committed to their organization. Only then can managers motivate employees into
putting discretionary effort into their work. But, the problem is that managers
themselves need to be engaged before they can engage their subordinates; it is evident
that levels of engagement must rise in management before they can be expected to rise
in employees given the impact management can have on employees.
UNDERSTANDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT AND RETENTION
Punia B. K & Sharma Priyanka (2008), conducted research on “Employees
Perspective on Human Re- source Procurement Practices as a Retention Tool in Indian
IT Sector”. “This paper studied that the Employee Retention is the biggest challenge
that Human Resource Management is facing today. The uncertainty of a changing
economy, increasing competition and diversity in the workplace has compelled the
organizations to hold on to their top performers at whatever cost they have to pay. It is
a very difficult task for the recruiters hire professionals with the right skills set all over
76
again. Hence, this paper studies the influence of Organisational procurement practices
on employee retention intentions on the basis of personal and positional variables of
employees. It also examines the variations in the corporate perception on the
procurement practices as a retention tool for IT Personnel.”
Tejvir Singh, Pankaj Kumar, Pushpendra Priyadarshi (2008), “Employee
Engagement: A comparative study on Selected Indian Organizations”, the research is a
comparative study on the EE from different sectors; it explores the correlation between
different factors of engagement and their impact on the engagement. The study states
that the organizations should identify and fulfil the expectations of the employees. The
expectations vary organization to organization, and also as per the phase of the career
of employees. The younger employees need career advancement and compensation,
more experienced need empowerment, open communication than compensation, and
top-level employees need work-life balance, better compensation and autonomy. Thus,
the organizations must do need analysis of employees to identify the factors of
engagement.
Thiagarajan B &Renugadevi V (2011), conducted research on “An empirical
investigation on Employee Engagement Practices in Indian BPO Industries”, and the
purpose of this research article is to introduce employee engagement and key research
on engagement related factors in BPO Industries in India. “The authors conducted a
literature search on employee engagement and interviews with 126 executives. Career
development, performance appraisal and motivation factors are connected to employee
engagement. The implications are that leaders should be educated on engagement,
career development opportunities are particularly important and that performance
improvement should champion work life balance, these practices are useful to increase
engagement.”
77
Sharma Baldev R et al (2010), conducted research on “Determinants of Employee
Engagement in a Private Sector Organization: An Exploratory Study” “aimed to
ascertain the level of employee engagement and the determinants thereof among the
sales executives of a private sector organization. Sample for the study consists of 51
sales executives of a manufacturing organization located in the National Capital
Region. Data were collected with the help of an 80-item "structured" questionnaire and
analysed using the SPSS package. The findings show an across- the-board low rating
on all 14 parameters of the study. Multiple regression analysis revealed that four out of
the 12 potential predictors, all of which belong to the situation within which the
employees are working, are the critical determinants of employee engagement.”
Otken Ayşe Begüm & Erben GülSelin (2010), conducted research on “Investigating
the Relationship Between Organizational Identification and Work Engagement and the
Role of Supervisor Support”. “The purpose of the study is to investigate the
relationship between organizational identification and work engagement. Social support
in the organizational context has a positive influence on several attitudes and
behaviours of employees. Especially, when employees receive a support from a key
actor in the workplace, they reciprocate through positive outcomes. With this in mind,
supervisor support is examined whether it moderates the relationship between
organizational identification and work engagement. A questionnaire was used as a data
collection method and sample consisted of 212 employees working in the private sector
in Istanbul, Turkey. Results showed that employees who identify with their
organization have high levels of work engagement. The support received from the
supervisor is found to have a moderating role in this relationship. “
Krishnan Sandeep K & Singh Manjari (2010), conducted research on “Outcomes of
intention to quit of Indian IT professionals”. “This study explores performance
78
orientation, organizational deviance, and organizational citizenship behaviour as
outcomes of intention to quit of Indian IT professionals. These factors become critical
in the context of human resource management because employees who want to quit
may become less productive or even dysfunctional for the organization. Interviews and
a questionnaire-based survey were used in this research. The initial results show that as
hypothesized, intention to quit does lead to a less performance orientation, higher
organizational deviance, and less organizational citizenship behaviour. Further,
exploration using structural equation modelling shows that performance orientation
mediates the relationships between intention to quit and organizational citizenship
behaviour as well as between intention to quit and organizational deviance. This study's
finding implies that organizations need to understand that employees with a high
intention to quit can prove costly from multiple dimensions.”
SakariTaipale, KirsikkaSelander, TimoAnttila, JoukoNätti (2011), conducted
research on “Work engagement in eight European countries: The role of job demands,
autonomy, and social support” “aim of this paper was to build upon established theories
about job demands and autonomy, it uses a newer work engagement approach,
produces cross-national knowledge work engagement and its predictors. Cross-national
approaches to worker engagement are still rare. “
Rehman Muhammad Safdar & WaheedAjmal (2011), conducted research on “An
Empirical Study of Impact of Job Satisfaction on job Performance in the Public Sector
Organizations”. “The purpose of this descriptive-correlational study was to test link
between job satisfaction, job retention and job performance. A sample of 568
employees from public sector regulatory authorities was selected for this study.
Employing a descriptive correlative survey method data was collected through
questionnaires. The employees were generally satisfied with their jobs. This study has
79
explored a relationship showing large effect size correlations (r = 0.52) between job
performance and job satisfaction. “
Mamta, Sharma R. Baldev (2011), conducted research on “Study of Employee
Engagement and its Predictors in an Indian Public Sector Undertaking”. “This article
presents an assessment of the level of employee engagement among managers of a
public sector undertaking in India. Besides highlighting the level of engagement, the
study has identified the predictors of organizational commitment, which was used as an
important manifestation of employee engagement. The study is based on primary data
collected from 84 managerial employees on a number of parameters relating to
employee engagement and its potential predictors. The study has revealed that the level
of employee engagement in this organization is quite modest. Three factors, namely,
pay, job content and objectivity are found to be the predictors of employee
engagement.”
Dharmendra Mehta & Naveen K Mehta (2013) “Employee Engagement: A
Literature Review” Engaged employees contribute more in terms of organizational
productivity and will have higher commitment levels which leads to customer
satisfaction. The different dimensions of employee engagement are elaborated in the
study to understand the concept of EE in detail. Employee engagement is linked with
the emotional, cognitive and physical aspects of work. Employee engagement is a long
term process and linked to core tenants of the business like as, values, culture and
managerial philosophy. The working environment in organizations must enable the
employees to exhibit behaviour that organizations are looking for. They should promote
those factors which have a positive impact on engaging employees. CSR is emerging as
an important engaging practice, organizations need to consider the views of employees
over how best CSR can be implemented, etc., thus the organizations have to develop
80
such cultures where employees are not scared to offer upwards feedback and have
candid communication at all the levels.
Shweta Vaibhav Vohra 2013, “A study of Employee Engagement Practices in select
IT companies in and around Pune” “This study establishes that for various elements or
parameters of Employee Engagement there are different sets of relevant Drivers which
need to be kept in mind while designing the Employee Engagement practices.
Similarly, it also throws light on the Drivers that play a more important role in
‘Engaging’ various levels of IT employees’ viz. Junior Level, Middle Level and Senior
Level.”
S. Gokula Krishnan 2014, Employee Engagement and Its Impact on Intention to quit
the study confirmed that employee engagement, engagement drivers having a
significant relationship with the employee’s intention to quit. It also confirmed
Compensation & Benefits, Job Characteristics, Perceived Organizational Support,
Perceived Manager/ Supervisor Support, Learning & Development, Employee
Communication and Person-Organization Fit is a better predictor of both employee
engagement and intention to quit. Finally, both Employee Engagement and
Engagement Drivers demonstrated an inverse relationship with Intention to quit as
expected.
Salila Kumar Pattnaik 2014, Effect Of Employer Branding On Employee
Engagement: A Study Of Indian It Services Company's results of the study revealed
that “attribute inspirational values, the nature of work, and organization culture
explains 64% of the variance in the level of employer attractiveness. At the same time
attribute nature of work, physical work environment, and compensation is the greater
81
predictor of employee engagement. The study further found that company driven forced
training programmes are having an adverse effect on employee engagement.”
Preeti Thakur (2014), “A Research Paper on the effect of EE on Job Satisfaction in IT
sector” “The purpose of this paper seeks to find out the Effect of Employee
Engagement on Job Satisfaction in IT Sector. Primary as well as secondary data has
been used to carry out the research. The study has been carried out on officers as well
as the clerks of IT sector. The findings came out and this is identified that among the
former work motivation could be improved through increasing job authority and
accountability. At the clerical level, rewards and sanctions are significantly associated
with job involvement.”
Amit Bijon Dutta & Sneha Banerjee. (2014), “Study of Employee Retention” the
researcher in the study first identified the potential reasons for employee turnover, such
as salary, Lack of challenge or growth, lack of reorganization, lack of trust in senior
management and overall low job satisfaction, etc., then identified factors such as
organizational culture, pay and remuneration, flexibility and job satisfaction has a
crucial role in retention of employees. The study also suggests that retaining a crucial
worker would demand the leader to reap the sensation of job security and job
satisfaction in the mind of the workers.
Bhargava V.R. 2015, Study on Employee Engagement and Its Impact on
Organizational Effectiveness In Select Global Companies in Bangalore City. “The
study gives us an insight bout the engagement levels of employees in the global
companies in Bangalore city. The study indicates that employees are not highly
engaged because of aspects such as discontentment regarding the organization culture,
inadequate resources, support, lack of co-employee’s support, dissatisfaction in the
82
actions and behaviour of the senior management, annoyance concerning company
Human Resources policies and procedures and distressing opportunities. With reference
to Organizational Effectiveness a majority of the employees’ agreement level with
regard to return on investment, retention of employees and corporate social
responsibility was found to be at moderate level.”
Vidhi Tyagi 2015, “Impact of EE on Talent retention among academicians in
professional colleges.” “The study found a direct relationship between employee
engagement and talent retention confirming the findings of the previous studies Report
of Corporate Leadership Council. Thus the academicians who are engaged in their
work are also likely to be retained by their employing organization. Each facet of
engagement was also examined in relation to retention. This investigation shows that
the figure is the stronger predictor of talent retention, i.e. if an employee has willing to
make the effort in work or if he is energetic towards his work, he is likely to be retained
by his organization. The finding that absorption also has a strong positive influence on
employee retention is not surprising. Also dedication, influence retention, but the
dedication factor has lowest influence when it is compared with other two dimensions,
i.e. if an employee is highly involved in work also seems to have the intention to stay,
but his energy level and concentration towards work are the strongest predictors of
talent retention.”
Purna Chandra Panigrahi 2015, Employee Empowerment A Way To Employee
Engagement: A Critical Requirement For Employee Retention “the study contributes to
find the facilitators of empowerment, key drivers of engagement and individual and
combined impact of empowerment and engagement on retention of employees based on
the existing literatures by examining and confirming the propositions which ultimately
lead to successful talent retention. The findings are congruent with the past researches
83
pointing to a positive association between empowerment, engagement and retention.
The results of the study support the notion that well-crafted measures for empowerment
and engagement leads to successful employee retention. Third, the study is unique in
explicating through the case study that organizations must align HR strategy with the
business strategy for active empowerment, engagement and retention of human
resources.”
Praveen Kumar Sharma 2016, Employee Engagement and Retention: “A Study of
Software Professionals, organizational variable (organizational culture) and individual
variable (personality) both affect employee engagement, and in turn, employee
engagement lead to job satisfaction, consequently, job satisfaction leads to employee
retention. Moreover, good working condition (organizational culture) and positive
employee personality (high core self-evaluations) leads to increase employee retention.
In the long-term, this may enhance organizational performance and revenue.”
Arti Chandani & Mita Mehta (2016) “Employee Engagement: A Review Paper on
Factors Affecting Employee Engagement”, “The article delves in detail the meaning of
employee engagement and its importance, particularly with respect to its effect on
employee retention and performance. The study identifies factors of EE to be
implemented in an effective manner. The various factors of engagements which are at
macro, i.e. at the organizational level and micro level, i.e. at the individual level are
discussed and the variations in factors may arise due to differences in individual and
job characteristics, gender diversity; ethnic diversity, etc. Engagement can be improved
by opportunity thinking, enhancing employee decision- making, and commitment,
transparency from the senior leadership will also make the organization culture more
open. By implementing these engagement factors organizations can reduce employee
turnover and improve productivity.”
84
2.6 OBSERVATIONS ON THE REVIEW
Collective consideration of the above mentioned literature reveals the following key
points-
1) An important issue with the concept is its lack of clear single or universal
definition. This is reflected in 2 ways – one is that the concept has been defined
by different authors in different ways and at the same time another problem is
that the definitions then reflect resemblance with the meaning of other settled
terminologies.
2) The large variety of definitions makes the state of knowledge of employee
engagement difficult to determine as each study examines employee
engagement in a different manner.
3) Further, unless the employee engagement can be globally defined and
measured, it cannot be managed, nor can it be known if efforts to improve it are
working or not. This explains the problems of comparability caused by
differences in definition.
4) Apart from the difference in the meaning, there are differences in the views
about the factors that cause employee engagement or disengagement. So much
is the scope of difference in these factors, that some of the studies have found
out that even within the same company, across different locations, there can be
differences in factors causing engagement or disengagement.
5) Individual differences further add to the variations in the relevance of employee
engagement factors.
6) The term employee involvement and employee engagement are closely related
to each other.
85
2.7 RESEARCH GAP
The gap can be analysed by way of the following table-
Table 2.3 - Research Gap
Sr.
Area Status of Research available Research Gap
No.
1 Basic elements of The entire research is devoted Who should decide the
employee to only one single dimension engagement factors –
engagement – What engages an employee, employer or both,
employee? How much should an
employee be engaged and
What should actually
engage employee has not
been studied.
2 Role of money Few studies have stated that How much money can
money matters. They say that engage or disengage an
employees tend to give what employee and in what way,
they receive in terms of has not been researched.
economic and social benefits.
86

11 Chapter 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

11 Chapter 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter – II –Literature Review

research material followed by identification of research gap.

2.1 INTRODUCTION TO LITERATURE REVIEW

understanding of important aspects of research as a subject. Literature review includes

topics ranging from research methodology, statistics, Concept of Employee

engagement, Factors influencing employee engagement, Models designed by various

methodology and approach used by other researchers.

sites (IT/ ITES Annual reports, IBEF, NASSCOM, CITE HR etc.).

Literature on employee engagement is widely available. More so because attrition is a

demands constant updated HR skills. Moreover IT/ITES is a global phenomenon. It has

coming together makes it challenging to devise generally applicable HR strategy.

2.2 GUIDANCE USED

research types and use of an existing literature review.

that the measure captures important performance-related information.” Now Q12 is an

a literature review carried by a squad of researchers – Sandeep Kular, Mark Gatenby,

objective of this work, that is to say, to see the concept of Employee

Engagement and identify the components of employee participation.

2) A highly cohesive and all-pervasive approach and

3) Lucid style of presentation

are stated in this regard –

2) Wherever possible, use of own language would be made.

3) Based on the above considerations a decision was taken to refer to the LR by

Sandeep Kular et.al.

2.3 OBJECTIVES OF LITERATURE REVIEW

Based on the literature review on employee engagement by SandeepKularet.al (2008)

following objectives are set –

1) Understanding conceptualization of employee engagement

2) Studying relationship of individual differences with employee engagement

3) Studying relationship between employee involvement and employee

4) Studying relationship between employee engagement and Retention

2.4 SCHEME OF LITERATURE REVIEW

Relationship of individual differences with EE, Relationship of employee involvement

with EE, and Outcomes of EE.

Conceptualization of EE - meaning and definition of EE, the researcher also tried to

Operationalization of EE - which includes defining variables of EE into measurable

factors/drivers as EE is qualitative concept. Categories of engaged employees and

dimensions of EE are also covered here.

Relationship of individual differences with EE covers modules such as perception,

personality and motivation etc., on engagement of employees.

Relationship of employee involvement with EE covers studies on Voice mechanism-

which means the participation of employees in decisions on EE factors. It also includes

management’s willingness to share control.

And finally, outcomes of EE studies conducted to reveal the outcomes of EE such as

Profits, performance, retention, productivity and advocacy of organisation etc. The

researcher reviewed those studies specifically whose outcome is retention because it is

Figure 2.1 Scheme of Literature Review

2.5. LITERATURE REVIEW

A key challenge presented by the literature is the lack of a universal definition of

Kahn (1990:694) has defined employee engagement as “the harnessing of organization

themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performances”. The

cognitive dimension of employee engagement concerns employees’ beliefs about the

employee engagement concerns the physical energies exerted by individuals to

accomplish their roles. Thus, according to Kahn (1990), engagement means to be

psychologically as well as physically connected when occupying and performing an

Baumruk 2004, employee engagement has been defined as an emotional and

amount of discretionary effort showed by employees in their job (Frank et al 2004).

Although it is accepted and acknowledged that employee engagement is a multi-faceted

construct, as previously suggested by Kahn (1990), Truss et al (2006) defines

which is seen to encompass the three dimensions of engagement discussed by Kahn

of employee engagement difficult to determine as each study examines employee

engagement under a different approach. In addition, unless the employee engagement

by differences in definition. Further, whilst it is accepted that employee engagement

similar to other better known and established constructs such as ‘organizational

commitment’ and ‘organizational citizenship behaviour’ (OCB) (Robinson et al