See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313425181

Employee Engagement at Genpact

Conference Paper · January 2014

CITATIONS READS
2 4,158

1 author:

Parul Manchanda
Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University
7 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Parul Manchanda on 07 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Employee Engagement at Genpact
Pratiksha Tiwari

Assistant Professor, Department of Computer Applications, Delhi Institute of Advanced Studies, Affiliated to
GGSIP University, Delhi.

N Malati

Associate Professor, Department of Management, Delhi Institute of Advanced Studies, Affiliated to GGSIP
University, Delhi.

Parul Manchanda

Student, Master of Business Administration, Delhi Institute of Advanced Studies, Affiliated to GGSIP University,
Delhi.

Abstract: In the present scenario, the businesses are evolving both in terms of nature of work
and the diversity of the workforce. Organizations have witnessed quite a few challenges resulting
in the pay freezes and layoffs. Employee engagement is being employed by organization to
increase the contribution of the personnel. The employee engagements dynamics may vary
significantly depending upon the business industry, sector. Regardless of any industry, one thing
is sure, engaged employees have a commitment, are more involved, and strive to go above and
beyond in their jobs. The paper focuses on Employee Engagement at an ITES organization-
Genpact. Further; it explores the relation between various factors responsible for employee
engagement and their intention to stay in the organization. Descriptive Statistics, Factor
Analysis, T test and ANOVA are applied to analyze the data. The result revealed that there is no
significant affect of demographic on employee engagement at Genpact.

Introduction
Employee engagement is one of the key business drivers for bringing a competitive advantage
and prospering organizational success. High levels of engagement aim to prosper better customer
loyalty, increased stakeholder value and improve organizational performance. Despite this there
remains a shortfall in the literature on the topic, and relatively much little is known about the fact
that how employee engagement can be influenced by the management. There exists a great
degree of interest in engagement, but there also exits a perplexity. There is puzzlement regarding
the various inconsistent definitions given, and the way engagement has been measured in various
disparate ways.
An elaborate concept like engagement is being influenced by many factors: from the work itself,
workplace culture, communication, manager’s commitment and style of leadership, pay benefits,
working environment, and the organizations reputation and brand name. Talking of the today’s
scenario the businesses are evolving both in terms of global nature of work and the diversity of
the workforce. Thus the traditional means are inveigle to attract the multi generational
workforce. To keep the employees engaged, an organization needs to offer something unique
from: identifying unique career drivers and anchors, introducing and promoting the agile
working concept and thus improving the work life balance of employees, empowering them to
take decisions and imbibing in each individual the spirit of intrapreneurship, promoting a strong
communication channel by building a strong internal social media network. Thus to foster and
enhance a culture of engagement, HR is leading the way to design, measure, and evaluating
proactive workplace policies that would help the organizations to attract and retain the talented
people with required skills and competencies, which would help a firm gain competitive
advantage and help achieve growth and sustainability.

Since 1997, various studies have been conducted by Gallup for studying the levels and factors
that have been affecting engagement levels in an organization. Series of large scale studies have
been referred to as meta – analysis which has also been measuring the effect of employee
engagement on the organization’s bottom-line. The recent 2012 Meta – analysis of Gallup’s
ongoing investigation has been an ongoing investigation to link between worker engagement and
organizational performance and has confirmed the earlier meta- analysis: Employee engagement
has been consistently affecting key performance outcomes, regardless of which industry,
organization and country

A research and information company Melcrum, recently surveyed 1,000 corporate

communications and HR professionals and analyzed 40 case studies and found that many
respondents credit offering employee engagement programs with the following benefits: More
than 50% report improvement in employee retention and customer satisfaction, 33% report
higher productivity, 28% report improvements in employee advocacy, 27% improved status as a
"great place to work", 27% report increased profitability and 25% report improved absenteeism.

Literature review
Brittany R. Ballenstedt (2008) found that despite dwindling resources and increased pressure to
improve programs, agencies can thrive if managers connect with their employees. Higher levels
of employee engagement correlated with higher scores on the results and accountability portion
of the Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool. Srivastava P.,
Bhatnagar J., (2008) stated that there is a need for practicing due diligence in talent acquisition
strategy. To meet the demands for talent with a specific skill set in a given timeline, the
organizations are adopting innovative recruitment practices. The purpose of this paper is to
discuss some of these practices and also to investigate talent acquisition and its relationship to
levels of employee engagement. Bhatnagar J. (2007) investigated talent management and its
relationship to levels of employee engagement using a mixed method research design. Saks
A.M. (2006) indicated that there is a meaningful difference between job and organization
engagements and that perceived organizational support predicts both job and organization
engagement; job characteristics predicts job engagement; and procedural justice predicts
organization engagement. In addition, job and organization engagement mediated the
relationships between the antecedents and job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
intentions to quit, and organizational citizenship behavior. A model proposed by the CIPD
(2006c) and presented in the organization‘s Employee Attitudes and Engagement Survey' of
2006, brings various elements of employee engagement together in one overarching model. .
Harter, James K. et al. used meta-analysis to examine the relationship at the business-unit level
between employee satisfaction-engagement and the business-unit outcomes of customer
satisfaction, productivity, profit, employee turnover, and accidents. Relationships large enough
to have substantial practical value were found between unit-level employee satisfaction-
engagement and these business-unit outcomes.

Objectives

 To identify the factors that affects Employee Engagement at Genpact.

 To study the relationship between select demographic variables and Employee

Engagement.

Hypothesis
H1: There is no significant difference between the employee engagement and age.

H2: There is no significant difference between the employee engagement and Gender.

H3: There is no significant difference between the employee engagement and position the
person occupies in the organization.

H4: There is no significant difference between the employee engagement and experience

Research Design and Data Analysis:

The study uses both primary and secondary data. Primary data are collected through a structured
Questionnaire. The secondary data are collected through books, magazines and journals. The
questionnaire was distributed to 100 employees. After eliminating the incomplete responses, 72
samples were obtained so the response rate is 72%. The questionnaire was developed based on
detailed information which was gathered from comprehensive literature review. Factor analysis
was applied on the variables identified through exploratory study and various factors were
identified such as the work itself, culture, organizational commitment, role of supervisor, pay
benefits, work environment, teamwork, training and development as given in Table 1 Further, t-
test and ANOVA were applied to analyze the data, using SPSS 18.0.

Table 1: Factor Analysis

Factor Label and Variables Factor Loadings Cronbach’s alpha
1 Work Itself
The mission purpose of your company 0.636
 make you feel that your job is important
I have a clear understanding of 0.626
company’s policies
You feel secure in the job and not distracted 0.685
by uncertainty of the future of the 0.849
organization
You have the tools and resources required 0.626
to do the job
Your supervisor listens to your opinions 0.772
when making decisions
The tasks assigned to you help you grow 0.721
professionally
You are given the required supervision by 0.800
your superiors
You receive the right amount of 0.726
appreciation for your work
2 Culture 0.881
The organizations policies for promotion
0.870
and advancement are always fair
The various department, workgroups and
teams work effectively towards common 0.810
goals
My manager always acts in a manner that is
0.735
consistent with the Organization’s value
Employees are empowered and encouraged
0.848
to solve their own problems
The Organization respects its employees 0.741
3 Organizational Commitment
Everybody in the Organization lives up to
0.870
the Organization’s value 0.655
I could report unethical activities without
0.802
fear of reprisal
4 Role of Supervisor/ Manager 0.949
My manager values my talent and the
0.909
contribution I make
When I have questions or concerns, my
0.850
supervisor is able to address them
My manager values my talent and the
0.833
contribution I make
My supervisor is committed to making the
0.806
company a more comfortable place to work
My manager gives me the freedom to do
0.806
my job effectively
My manager is strongly result oriented 0.805
My Supervisor is approachable 0.796
My supervisor evaluates my work
0.787
performance on a regular basis
I am always treated fairly by my manager 0.786
I am satisfied with my manager 0.778
 When I have questions or
concerns, my supervisor is 0.777
able to address them
My manager tolerates honest mistake as
0.748
learning experiences
5 Pay Benefits 0.941
Other benefits offered by the Company? 0.912
Your career progression at the Company
0.897
thus far?
Your annual raise?
0.881
The process used todetermine annual
0.862
raises?
Your possibilities for future career
0.853
progression at the Company?
The process used to determine promotions? 0.846
Your bonus? 0.814
Your base pay? 0.681
6 Work Environment
There is adequate security at all building 0.838
0.825
entrances
The Workplace is physically comfortable 0.776
The Work place is well maintained 0.764
First Aid or Medical help is readily
0.735
available to treat any injury at work
The common areas (washrooms, passages
0.717
are kept clean)
The cafeteria is kept clean at all the times 0.645
7 Team Work
Teams have a spirit of teamwork and work 0.894
0.919
well together to achieve goals
Are the members of the team honest to each
0.852
other
Members of the team communicate well
0.834
with each other
The members of the team remove conflicts
0.796
quickly
Your team should be larger than it is,
0.791
smaller than it is, or is the size about right
8 Training and Development
I receive adequate technical training as per
0.865
my job
Technical trainings help me improve my
0.861
performance
In last 6 months were you checked upon
0.830
your progress
Non Technical (HR) trainings are
0.805 0.887
interactive and useful
 In the last year have you had opportunities
0.803
to learn and grow

Levene’s test and T test (for independent samples) have been applied to examine the effect of
age and gender on employee engagement. Levene's test for equality of variances yields that
variances of both the populations are same at 5% level of significance and there is no significant
effect of gender on all the factors as given in Table 2.

Table 2: Independent Samples T test

Levene’s Test for T-Test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances
Gender * Employee F Sig. t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Engagement 1.187 0.280 0.508 72 0.613
Age * Employee 0.016 .901 1.256 72 0.213
Engagement

One Way ANOVA was applied to test the effect of age, education qualification, occupation and

functional area on all the factors and there is no significant effect difference of identified

demographics and employee engagement (Table 3).

Table 3: ANOVA Table

Sum of Mean
Squares df Squares F Sig.
Position at Genpact Between Groups 9.195 3 3.065 0.171 0.916
* Employee Within Groups 1255.211 70 17.932

Engagement Total 1264.406 73

Years of Working at Between Groups 137.186 4 34.296 2.099 0.090

Genpact * Employee Within Groups 1127.220 69 16.337

Engagement Total 1264.406 73

Functional Area at
Between Groups 38.468 6 6.411 .350 .907
Genpact * Employee
Within Groups 1225.939 67 18.298
Engagement
Total 1264.406 73
Conclusion

Human Resource is the most important asset and provides the competitive edge to the
organization. Organizations are constantly focusing on engaging their employees through
various techniques. The study identified seven factors which affect employee engagement at
Genpact and they are work itself, culture, and organizational commitment, role of supervisor,
pay benefits, work environment, teamwork, training and development. Organizations in today’s
world have to constantly find ways to keep their employees engaged lest they lose them to
competitors.

References

Books:-

 Chadha, Narender K. “Human Resource Management” New Delhi: Sultan Chand & Sons, 2004
 Robins,Stephen. P “Principles Of Management”, New Delhi: Dorling Kindersley(India), 2005.
 Engage the Employee, HR Special Survey, Business World, 5th of May 2008
 Kothari C. R. “Research Methodology”, Vishwa publication, New Delhi
 Dr. Sharma D.D. “Marketing Research”, Sultan Chand & Sons educational publication, New
Delhi
 “Alan M. Saks, "Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement", Emerald 21, (2006)”
 Jyotsna Bhatnagar, (2007) "Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES
employees: key to retention", Employee Relations, Vol. 29 Iss: 6, pp.640 – 663”
• www.genpact.com
• www.citehr.com
• Jteresko – Driving employee engagement – www.industryweek.com, Sept. 2004
• “Salary the only motivator? Employees look beyond”, http://www.siliconindia.com
• Gallup: http://www.gallup.com
• Indian firms best in employees satisfaction, http://www.siliconindia.com
• Employee engagement activities, http://www.humanresources.hrvinet.com
• Key Drivers Of Employee Engagement, http://retention.naukrihub.com/
• Flexibility Key to Retaining Women, http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4779.html
• “WorkUSA 2000 - Employee Commitment and the Bottom Line”,
http://www.watsonwyatt.com/research
• http://www.erinresearch.com/
 • “Melcrum employee engagement survey 2007/08 – summary of findings”,
http://www.melcrum.com/offer/etee/surveysummary.pdf
• http://openscotland.net/Publications/2007/05/09111348/6

View publication stats