An Analytical Study on Employee’s Engagement and its Relationship with Job Outcomes: A case of Tata Consultancy Services (TCS)

 

Munish¹, Dr. Rachna Agarwal²

¹Assistant Professor, Aravali College of Engineering & Management, Faridabad, India

²Associate Professor, YMCA University of Science and Technology, Faridabad, India

 

ABSTRACT:

Employee engagement works an engine which drives the employee to achieve productivity at optimized level. Employee engagement has gained its vital importance from last 15 years or so as many business severe face the tough competition and economic meltdown; stress on basis of mentally and physically is an important aspect of human resource so to gain the next level edge on competition and level of productivity; this must be properly taken into consideration. It is emerging as a new hot topic for young research fellows to find out the ways for better and efficient human resource management and on the same time to analyse the reviewed literature and add something substantial in this regard. For the current study, 159 IT professionals from Tata Consultancy Services (TCS, Gurgaon) were analysed with  an objective to analyse the various employee engagement factors and their influence on the job outcomes (Satisfaction with Job, Commitment, Quitting intentions) and on employee engagement (Organization and job) as well . For the data analysis, the descriptive test with multiple regression analysis is undertaken in the study. The results of the study states that rewards and recognition, career advancement, co- workers relationships majorly affect and influence the level of job outcomes.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Now a day due to rapid pace of globalization, Indian organizations realized that their talent is the key to their growing and better productivity and the one strategic resource that any undertaking genuinely needs. The last 20 years or so we have seen the rapid changing in technology, production, distribution and customers tastes and preferences last but not the least employees and their behavior.

 

This transition transform the level of engagement from satisfaction of employees to job and organization commitment. Employee engagement has been acknowledged as a crucial factor contributing to Organizational productivity, in success and could have positive implications that align the business in good direction in all aspects of any business enterprise. Every company knows the importance of attractive retention and engagement of people for gaining a competitive edge. But what is less commonly identified is that employees wish to be engaged in transform where they experience that they are contributory in an optimistic way to something larger than themselves.  Employee and work engagement is an emerging concept in the business HR department. Various studies have been carried out that showed the strategic importance of employee engagement. The shoed that employee engagement leads to job satisfaction , less level of absenteeism, more productivity, less chance of quitting and stay for longer periods of time in the organization. So it’s become very integral part of key responsibility of HR managers to develop and implement policies regarding employees which influence and motivates for organization commitment and higher productivity with a blend of employee development. This study will focus on drivers of employee engagement and their outcome on jobs and Organizational commitment. Over the age, one of the toughest challenges confronting the CEOs HR and the techno- business leaders of more Organizations has been to secure that when their employees assure in everyday, they not exclusive do it physically but also mentally and emotionally. In short management has to assure that their employees are genuinely engaged. Employee engagement has emerged as a key driver of business today. It practically affects the employee morale productivity and reasons for retaining in company. Organizations are using their retained and engaged employees as a tool and method for strategic competency. A highly motivated and engaged employee consistently outperform and set new standards for the years to come.

 

LITERATURE REVIEW:

The last 20 years or so we have seen the rapid changing in technology, production, distribution and customers tastes and preferences last but not the employees and their behavior. This transition transforms the level of engagement from satisfaction of employees to job and organization commitment. In a study by Gallup (2005) stated the higher level of employee engagement leads to talent acquisition and talent management and its retention for long time. A study postulated by Bates (2004) concluded that if there is gap of engagement it adversely affect the productivity level of an organization. Another study was carried out by the researcher from Australia named Hooper (2006) analyzed that the economy of Australia lose nearly  about $32 billion per year due to the dissatisfied and moderately engaged employees. The study done by the Avery et al (2007) concluded that highly engaged employee omits the fear of attrition very efficiently. Some notable studies were carried out by prominent authors in the past the like of Harter et al.( 2002), Schaufeli and Bakker( 2006),  Xanthopoulou et al.( 2009),  Fernandez (2007) Bakker et al. (2007) Hewitt Associates.( 2004), Hallberg et al. (2006), Lewicka, (2011) and Saks (2006) their studies concluded that level of employee engagement is the vital factor which surely affects the performance of the organization.  It also shows that the relation between retention and productivity focused on the loyalty of employees and its relationship with the client level satisfaction this will lead to the higher goodwill for an organization as well as enhance the values of its equity.

A study carried out by the Markos and Sridevi (2010) Every part of human resource management must align together for smoothen the performance of an organization if the employee stay engaged this will automatically leads to productivity. Another research done the Raveesh et al (2010) they said that engagement of employee become the critical component for an organization to get an edge over the competition and strategic management of all resource deployed. In this regard the importance of work life on an employee and the changing industrial relations, technological advancements will be done though employee engagement. Kahn (1990) Puts emphasis on employee engagement and its psychological importance to the employee and to the organization. He stated that the employees work in diverse conditions and with different group of people and various management policies adopted by the management. He conclude that various situation in business entities like rewards ,recognition, growth, communication, team work, recreational activities leads the employee to do well and remain engaged. Harter et al. (2002) has further defined the term employee engagement as the involvement of an individual and the level of satisfaction as well as enthusiasm for work with loyalty. Employee engagement can be defined with the level of commitment and involvement an employee possesses towards the organization and of its values. The concept of employee engagement is relatively new for Human Resource Management and appeared in the literature for nearly 20 years said by the Robinson et al. (2005) another view on employee engagement by the Melcrum Publishing (2005) and Ellis and Sorensen (2007) Saks (2006) and Roberts (2006) stated that employee engagement is highly associated with the existing construct of job involvement and flow of factors. A study conducted by the International Survey Research (2003) stated that employee engagement as the practice by which a firm surely enhances the commitment and notable contribution of its human resources to achieve greater business outcomes with higher level of productivity. This Research postulated that employee engagement is a mixture of an employee’s psychological, attitude, behavioral and affective dedication to the organization. In the current study the employee engagement was described by incorporating the two sort of employee engagement namely, Job Engagement which is  concerned with the level of employees and their commitment and dedication to perform their job roles and other was Organizational Engagement which deals about  the level of employee commitment and sense loyalty to their respective organization. This concept was first summaries by A. Saks (2006) who defined the concern over the demand for employee engagement to be viewed in terms of job engagement and organization level engagement for strategic decision making and precise understanding of the employee engagement. The concept of Employee engagement has received and gained a great deal of attention and attraction in the last fifteen years especially in the IT industry. It has often been postulated as the vital key to an organization success and gaining the level of competitiveness over a period of time. Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) in their study concluded that employee engagement is vital for contemporary as well as for traditional organizations because today’s time leads the many challenges they face now a days. The studies carried out by the Macey et al., (2009) stated that the organizations can achieve a higher level of competitive advantage through employee engagement over the competitors. Many a time the prominent researchers and CEO’s and other top management officials raised the need of employee  engagement as a vital driver of individual attitudes, behavior, productivity  and performance as well as Organizational performance and the level of  productivity, employee retention level , profit performance and position and even the shareholder return in terms of dividends. Schmidt, and Hayes (2002) and Richman (2006) and Macey et al., (2009) their study have shown that among a sample of 69 firms in different industries had shown that the firm having 27% of index shows the level of employee engagement had greater values for their assets (ROA)as compare to the industries which have shown the trend of dis- engagement. This build a strong image in terms of goodwill and relatively it’s becomes easily to raise finance from the market. Rothbard (2001) concluded in similar fashion regards absorption as a critical component of employee engagement that enhances the productivity of the employee and of the organization. Schaufeli and Salanova (2007) They suggest that the distinction lies in the fact that whereas employees engagement is a persistent work of state the  flow is a more complex concept that involves momentary perks and  experiences that can occur outside of work stations. Markos and Sridevi (2010) postulated in their study that the beginning of an employee engagement is at the first of his appointment to the organization’s services and it is the responsibility of managers to motivate the employees for commitment and engagement for job performance with a sense of loyalty. Pandita and Bedarkar (2014) Concluded that the major challenge and obstacle today the top management generally faces is to ensure that when their employees completes all the assignments of   work given every day and stay fit in all regard like of  physically, mentally and emotionally. This concludes that the organization must ensure and state that their employees must remain engaged so that they are able to contribute positively towards achieving the organizational goals as well as their personal goals. Meere (2005) in his study defines the three levels of employee’s engagement: (i) Engaged Employees who work with passion and enthusiasm and feel a highly committed connection to their organization. They drive themselves with innovation and move the organization forward with their effort. (ii) Not engaged- employees who works normally complete given tasks on time but shows no urgency to improve and not put the passion in their efforts. (iii) Disengaged –employees who are demotivated and lack of confidence in the organization and remains unhappy at work place and who shows their unhappiness at work quite often. A study by Sakovska (2012) Stated and looked at standing of employee mesh in activity environs. This examination was involved to feat out the levels of contact and the factors that disadvantage engagement the speculate recovered out that low level of booking was contributed by low detected organizational connectedness, low representation of procedural functionary and moneyless communicating. Bakar (2013) rumination focused on iii concepts i.e. empowering leaders' doings, soprano show make practices and role of religiousness on involution. One fundamental feature of this musing was its multi structure act on studying engagement that is studying it at separate, organizational and societal levels. Kangure, Wario and Odhiambo (2014) take focused on the relationship between job characteristics (job uncrowdedness, job liberty, job meaning and job action) and employee mesh. The reflexion results revealed that job quality, job independence, job content and job show, bed a supportive evidentiary relation with employee meshing. The gross results also revealed that job characteristics explain 95.2% of employee employment among refers corporations in Kenya. This learning only convergent on through relationship between the variables low muse. Men (2015) Concluded that how employees engagement is associated with otherwise outcome versatile of employee - activity relationships and how it is involuntary by organizational contextual factors of unquestionable leading and transparent communication. This papers looked at both straightforward and tortuous personality of trusty leading and straight connection on striking. The work plant out that meshing is positively influenced by quality employee - organizations relationships (i.e. employee combine, discipline, mutuality, message and satisfaction). It also recovered out that the personality of transparent connexion and veritable body on mesh were mediated by employee - disposal relationships and inner Castellano (2015) the findings revealed an affirmatory result of group product and perceived organizational supporting on booking. The cogitate also open that there was no pellucidity on the nature/levels of succeed participation and teamwork.

 

RATIONALE OF THE STUDY:

This study attempts to understand the studies of employee engagement which covers all business by predicting the ways by demonstration how the Human Resource policies directly affects the employee engagement drivers. Modern day employer knows the importance of employee engagement. An engaged employee performs better with zeal with higher competency level which enhance the performance of the employee as well as of employer. The study discussed mainly three drivers of employee engagement namely recreational activities, employee training and development and co- workers relationships. This study conceptualize am model which indicated its relationship with both type of engagement and job engagement and organization engagement and its impact of job outcomes.

 

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

1.        The objective of the study is to explore the drivers of employee engagement.

2.         To analyse these drivers of employee engagement (independent variables) and their influence on the job outcomes (dependent variables) by using the measure employee engagement (Organization and job) as the mediating variable.

 

 

FRAME WORK OF RESEARCH:

The main objective of the study is to analyse drivers of employee engagement (independent variables) and their influence on the job outcomes (dependent variables) by using the measure employee engagement (Organization and job) as the mediating variable. The another aspect is to motivate and drive the employees achieving the goals with a sense of high involvement and desired level of commitment with a blend of loyalty and it’s vital to understand the employee engagement factors. This study will enhance the level of knowledge for researcher and for organizations about employee engagement with regard to dependent and independent variable of employee engagement and show the relationship between types employee engagement used as mediator. The individual factors of employee engagement are also known as the drivers of employee engagement also known as individual factor which behaves independently. So it becomes critical and vital to drive the employee for high level of job and organizational commitment, make them more efficient and productive therefore employee engagement lead as strong predictor of organizational and job success.

 

Engagement Drivers ·         Recreational Activities ·         Employee Training and Development ·         Co- Worker    Relationships

Employee Engagement ·        Organisational  Engagement ·        Job Engagement

Job Outcomes ·          Satisfaction with Job ·          Organisational Commitment ·          Quitting Intentions ·          Organisational Citizenship Behaviour

Figure 1: Research Model: Individual Factors of Employee Engagement and Work Outcomes

 

 

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES:

Reward and Recognition and Employee Engagement:

Monetary and non- Monetary rewards with a blend of recognition in the organization leads to the engagement so hypotheses 1 was developed.

 

H1: There is positive relationship between reward and recognition and employee engagement (Job and Organizational Engagement)

 

Employee Training and Development and employee engagement:

Many Previous studies had laid down the emphasis on that an employee is strive for acquiring new skills, knowledge and learning and continuously wish to develop his career. So hypothesis 2 was developed as:

 

H2:

There is positive relationship between Employee Training and Development and employee engagement (Job and Organizational Engagement)

 

Co- Workers Relationships and employee engagement:

A conducive working environment always leads to group cohesiveness which leads to the employee engagement. So a hypothesis 3 was framed as:

H3: There is positive relationship between Co- Workers Relationships and employee engagement (Job and Organizational Engagement)

 

Employee Engagement (Job engagement) and its Job Outcomes:

A study conducted by sakes (2006) the results of it showed that employee engagement is negatively correlated with quitting intentions and positively correlated with job satisfaction and commitment so hypotheses 4 was framed as:

 

H4: There is a significant influence between job engagement) and (i) Satisfaction with job (ii) organizational commitment (iii) organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) (iv) Quitting intentions.

 

Employee Engagement (Job engagement) and its Outcomes:

H5: There is a significant relationship between Employee engagement (Organizational engagement) and (i) Satisfaction with job (ii) organizational commitment (iii) organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) (iv) Quitting intentions.

 

Employee Engagement (Job and Organizational Engagement) mediates amid the drivers of engagement and job outcomes influencing this.:

In modern and traditional literature some prominent and useful findings were extracted that predict employee engagement drivers and their influence on work outcomes. It is on the card always that employee engagement may mediate the relationship among the factors driving engagement and the job outcomes of employee engagement. So hypotheses 6 were framed as: H6: Employee Engagement (Job engagement and organizational engagement) will mediate the relationship between the factors influencing the employee’s engagement it and its work out comes.

 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

The instrument for research  was carefully designed which contained 36 statements specifically designed  to examine the level to which factors affects the  employee engagement and its impact on job outcomes along with level of employee engagement. For this purpose the IT giant of India TCS was selected on the basis of convenience sampling method. The research design was employed in the study was analytical research. The statements were mainly based on the gaps analyzed with a proper study of existing literature in a modern day work schedules which mainly include rewards and recognition, career advancement, co- workers relationships. A simple random sampling method was employed for data collection. Questionnaires were sent to 210 respondents but only 159 filled questionnaires were received for the analysis.

 

Part A of the questionnaire consists of the respondent’s demographic profile such as age, gender, work experience and designation and was analyzed using the descriptive statistics.

 

Part B consisted of 36 statement consisting 4 questions for each of the variables statements (both independent variables and dependent variables) Each statement was used to measure the variable on 5 points Likert scales ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Then t-test was administered to find out the variance of the two engagement measures (Job and Organizational Engagement) while multiple regressions analysis was conducted to test the study hypotheses administered and also to find out the strong driver of employee engagement has most significantly correlated with measure of employee engagement.

 

Table 1: Demographic Profile of respondents

 

Table 1 shows the different demographic profile of the respondents on the basis of gender, age and working experience.

 

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Table 2: Mean and Standard Deviation of variables

Variables	Mean	Std. Dev.
Recreational Activities	19.01	3.339
Employee Training and Development	18.99	3.231
Co- Workers Relationship	19.95	2.345
Job Engagement	18.09	2.230
Organisational Engagement	20.01	2.567
Satisfaction With the Job	14.10	2.121
Organizational Commitment	23.50	3.346
Quitting Intentions	7.99	4.390
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour	22.57	2.788

Source: Complied and analysed by researchers

 

Table 2 shows the mean score and standard deviation of the undergone variables. It is important to clarify that a significant moderate correlation of r = 0.612, p<0.05 exist between job engagement and organization engagement though the paired t-test results showed a significant difference, t (158) = - 4.441, p<0.05. These results showed that despite of the correlation between job engagement and organization engagement both measures are also significantly different from respondents of this study pointing a higher organization engagement (mean = 20.01) than the job engagement (mean = 18.09) as shown in Table 2 above.

 

Table 3 shows the results of KMO (0.899) and Cronbach’s Alpha value of (0.912) indicating sampling adequacy, validity of data, factorability and reliability of data of questionnaire used in the study.

 

Table 3. KMO and Bartlett's Test

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.		.899
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity	Approx. Chi-Square	6.678
	df	1899
	Sig.	.000
Cronbach’s Alpha Test		.912
Cronbach’s Alpha based std. Items		.966

Source: Complied and analysed by researchers

The value of p<0.10 and values in the table are standard beta coefficient. To test and validate the hypotheses multiple regressions analyses test was carried out in which job engagement and organization engagement were regressed simultaneously on all three individual factors of engagement taken all are shown in Table 4 above.

 

The Table No. 5 and 6 shows the result of the regression analysis. The results clearly point out that the drivers of employee engagement showed a significant amount of the variance in job engagement R² = 0.433 and p<0.10 in Table 4 and organization engagement R² = 0.570 and p<0.10 Table no.5.

 

Table 4. Multiple Regression Analysis predicting the employee engagement

Employee Engagement Factors	Job Engagement	Organizational Engagement
Recreational Activities	0.006	-0.059
Employee Training and Development	0.255	0.081
Co- Workers Relationship	0.311	0.271
R2	0.433	0.570
F	11.932	20.923
Source: Complied and analysed by researchers

 

 

Table 5. Multiple regression analysis of factors predicting Job engagement

					Collinearity
Predictor variables	Unstandardised Coefficient Beta.	Standardised Coefficient Beta.	t- value	Sig.	Tolerance	VIF
Constant	6.616		4.174	0.000
Recreational Activities	0.003	0.006	0.040	0.960	0.300	4.369
Employee Training and Development	0.190	0.255	1.910	0.065	0.339	2.945
Co- Workers Relationship	0.299	0.311	2.810	0.005	0.449	3.220

Source: Complied and analysed by researchers

R² = 0.433   Adjusted R² = 0.389 F= 11.932 and p<0

 

Table 6. Multiple regression analysis of factors predicting Organisational engagement

					Collinearity
Predictor variables	Unstandardised Coefficient Beta.	Standardised Coefficient Beta.	t- value	Sig.	Tolerance	VIF
Constant	1.070		0.967	0.339
Recreational Activities	-0.061	-0.066	-0.459	0.644	0.218	4.299
Employee Training and Development	0.069	0.076	0.651	0.521	0.341	2.899
Co- Workers Relationship	0.311	0.271	2.661	0.008	0.459	2.219

Source: Complied and analysed by researchers

The value of p < 0.10, R²= 0.570 F= 20.923

 

With regards to the study hypotheses the results derived from the regression analysis show that co-workers relationship 0.311and p<0.10 and Employee Training and Development 0.255 and p<0.10 were significant predictors of job engagement as shown in the Table No. 4. Further Table 5 shows that co-employees support again 0.271 and p<0.10 was significant predictor of organization engagement from the results given hypotheses named H2 (a), H3 (a), and H3 (b) were accepted.

 

Table. 7 Multiple Regression result on Job Outcome of Employee Engagement

Variable	Job Satisfaction	Commitment	Quitting Intention	Organisation Citizenship Behaviour
Job Engagement	0.377	0.590	-0.249	0.720
R2	0.139	0.349	0.065	0.521
F	16.599	53.665	7.029	108.999
Organizational Engagement	0.487	0.749	-0.351	0.667
R2	0.244	0.589	0.129	0.577
F	33.421	129.112	14.678	145.987

Source: Complied and analysed by researchers

The value of p<0.10 and values in table are Standardized Beta Coefficient

 

The Table 7 shows the result of regression analysis result of the measures of employee engagement (job engagements and organization engagement) justifying a significant level of the variance on the work outcomes variables of the study. Job engagement variables justified a small significant extent of the variance in job satisfaction (R² = 0.139 and p <0.10), organization commitments (R² = 0.349 and p < 0.10) quitting intentions (R² = 0.059 and p < 0.10) and organizational citizenship behavior (R² = 0.521 and p < 0.10). While organization engagement showed a significant level of variances in job satisfaction (R² =0.244 and p < 0.10) and organization commitment (R² = 0.589 and p < 0.10) quitting Intentions (R² = 0.129 and p < 0.10) and finally, organizational citizenship behaviour (R²= 0.577and p < 0.10). In addition, job engagement and organization engagement together seen predicting job satisfaction (0.377and p < 0.10 and 0.487 < 0.10) organization commitment (0.590 and p < 0.10 and 0.749 and p < 0.10), Quitting intentions (- 0.249 and p < 0.10 and – 0.351) and organizational citizenship behavior (0.720 and p < 0.10 and 0.667 and p < 0.10). The result point out the acceptance for the Hypotheses H4 (a) H4 (b) H4 (c) and H4 (d) H5 (a), H5 (b), H5 (c) and H5 (d) respectively.

 

Employee Engagement (Mediation Effect):

In order to test the last hypothesis for the research mediation effect in which employee engagement (job engagement and organization engagement) mediates the relationship amid the group of factors and each work outcome, the multiple regression analyses was again employed. In the regression analyses, work outcomes were regressed on the factors alone and secondly, the work outcomes were regressed on the factors with the engagement measures (job engagement and organization engagement) controlled. In impose to test the last hypotheses for the research mediation outcome in which employee employment (job engagement and organization engagements) mediates the relationship amid the group of factors and each activity outcome, the multiple regression analyses was again hired. In the regression analyses, pass outcomes were regressed on the factors unique and secondly the work outcomes were regressed on the factors with the contact measures (job engagement and organization engagements) controlled.

 

Table 8. Result of mediating effect of employee engagement

Variables (Job Outcomes)	Job Outcome factors Only (Std. Beta)	R2	F	Job Outcome factors with Engagement as whole (Std. Beta)	R2	F
Job Satisfaction	0.489	0.23	32.119	0.510	0.265	36.123
Organisational Commitment	0.776	0.578	143.67	0.778	0.656	177.51
Quitting Intention	-0.389	0.150	18.343	-0.400	0.160	19.234
Organisation Citizenship Behaviour	0.787	0.569	135.78	0.810	0.656	191.32

Source: Complied and analysed by researchers

The value of p<0.10 and values in the table are Standardized Beta Coefficient.

 

From the extracted results shown in Table 7 the mediating effects of employee engagement is analyzed from the R² value is as for job satisfaction, the factors justified 23% of the variance but increased to 26.5% (p<0.10) with engagement measures (job engagement and organization engagement) controlled and for the organization commitment the factors explained 57.8% of the variance but increased to 65.6% (p<0.10) with engagement measures controlled. For quitting intensions the factors extracted 15% of the total variance but increased to 16% (p<0.10) with engagement measures controlled. Finally for organization citizenship behaviour the factors explained 56.9% of the variance but increased to 65.6% (p<0.10) with engagement measures controlled. In brief the result of the regression analysis indicates the acceptance for H6 therefore the relationship between engagement drive factors and employee engagement and job outcomes variables is strongly mediated by employee engagement (job engagement and organization engagement).

 

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION:

This study contribute a great and important value to the knowledge of  employee engagement as one of the art and method in advocating that employee engagement should be examined and analyzed by distinguishing and differentiating both job engagement and organizational engagement. This disparity will help the researchers and HR managers in explaining the strategic importance of employee engagement because it helps to analyse the job analysis of each and every individual and as a group as well and on the same time it help the organization in alignment of individual goals to organizational goals because it study the personality, attitude, attributes, rewards, employee development as employee engagement drivers. But employee engagement cannot be same for all so it’s the duty of HR department to make employee engagement a win –win situation for everybody. Engaged employee will resiliently identify and analyse with the success of their organization and win rewards and compensation from their contributions by the top management. The employee engagement model will help Tata Consultancy Services, Gurgaon (TCS) and other organization as well that support  and relationships from the co- workers is cost effective measure that drive the employee engagement to and sustain the long term relationship with a blend of high level engagement. Another factor that drive the employee engagement most was employee training and development and level of job satisfaction. In short it can be said that the analysis of multiple regression method intimate that individual factors that drive the employee engagement surely affects the job outcomes in a greater way. These drivers of employee engagement made a significant contribution to the employees in terms of their attitudes yet with the mediating effect of employee engagement the contribution of the engagement drivers to the engagement job outcomes enhanced positively. Finally it be concluded that drivers of employee engagement and job outcomes significantly mediating by employee engagement weather its job engagement or organizational engagement. The study revealed that this research supports the social exchange theory (SET) can be utilized as a conceptual framework in grasping the subject of employee engagement. This implies that the employees who have adequate support from the co-workers are more likely to repay with enhanced level of job engagement and organization engagement and employees who are perceived with enough employee development methods like of training skills, learning theories are more likely to engagement with the organization in their job and responsibilities, organization roles, commitments and this would repay with higher level of organization engagement and support.

 

REFERENCES:

1         Avery D.R, McKay P.F and Wilson D.C. Engaging the aging workforce: The relationship between perceived age similarity, satisfaction with co-worker and employee Engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2007; 25(9): 1542-1556.

2         Bakar R.A. Understanding factors influencing employee engagement: A study of the financial sector in Malaysia (unpublished doctoral thesis). School of management, RMIT University. Available from: URL: http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/view/rmit:160447/Abu_Bakar.pdf/2013.

3         Bates S. Getting engaged: Half of your workforce may be just going through the motions. HR Magazine. 2004; 49: 44-51.

4         Castellano WG. A new framework of employee engagement, EPE white paper; Rudgers School of Management and Labor Relations. Available from: URL: http://docplayer.net/23884308-A-new-framework-of-employee-engagement.html/30/01/2015.

5         Ellis C M and A Sorensen. Assessing Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Productivity. 2007; 15(1): 1-15.

6         Fernandez C P. Employee engagement. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice. Available from: URL: www.galegroup.com/30/06/2008.

7         Gagne M and Deci E.L. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Personality. 2005; 26: 331-362.

8         Gallup Organization. Employee Engagement: The Engagement side of the Human sigma Equation. Available from: URL:  www.gallup.com/13/08/2010.

9         Hallberg U.E. and W.B. Schaufeli. Same but different? Can work engagement be discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment? European Psychologist. 2006; 11: 119-127.

10      Harter JK, Schmidt FL and Hayes TL. Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2002; 87: 268−279.

11      Hewitt Associates L. Research Brief: employee engagement higher at double digit growth companies. Available from: URL:  www.hewitt.com/25/03/2013.

12      Hooper N. Companies where people want to work. Weekend Australian Financial Rev. 2006; 1: 17-19.

13      International Survey Research. Engaged Employee Drives the Bottom Line. Research Summary, Chicago, Illinois. 2003; 1: 10-35.

14      Kangure FM, Wario G and Odhiambo R. Relationship between job characteristics and employee engagement among state corporations in Kenya. Journal of Innovative Research and Studies. 2014; 13 (5): 327-350.

15      Leiter MP, and Maslach C. Burnout. In H. S. Friedman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mental health, Vol. 1, New York: Academic Press. 1998.

16      Lewicka D. Creating Innovative Attitudes in an Organization – Comparative Analysis of Tools Applied in IBM Poland and ZPAS Group. Journal of Asia Pacific Business Innovation and Technology Management. 2011; 1: 1-12.

17      Macey WH and Schneider B. The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2008 ;(1): 3−30.

18      Macey W H, SchneiderB, Barbera K M, and Young S A. Employee engagement: Tools for analysis, practice, and competitive advantage. Malden, WA: Wiley-Blackwell. Available from: URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444306538.fmatter/pdf/14/10/2009.

19      Markos S and Sridevi MS. Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance. International Journal of Business and Management. 2010; 5(12): 89-97.

20      Markos S and Sridevi M. Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance. International Journal of Business and Management. 2010;5: 89-96.

21      May DR, Gilson R L and Harter L M. The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2004; 77: 11−37.

22      Melcrum Publishing. Employee engagement: How to build a high-performance workforce. An independent Melcrum Research Report Executive Summary. Available from: URL: http:/ /www.melcrum.com/offer/ee/landing/9/01/2009.

23      Men LR. Employee engagement in relation to employee- organization relationship and internal reputation: effects of leadership and communication. Public Relations Journal. 2015; 9(2):11-22.

24      Pandita D and Bedarkar M. A study on drivers of engagement impacting employee performance. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2014; 133: 106-115.

25       Raveesh A, Mona C and Suryakant D. The Innovative Technique at Thomson. American Journal of Economics and Business Administration. 2010; 2: 189-193.

26      Richman A. Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Work span. 2006; 49: 36−39.

27      Roberts JV. Employee engagement and commitment: A guide to understanding, measuring and increasing engagement in your organization. US: SHRM Foundation. Available from: URL: http://studylib.net/doc/7731468/employee-engagement-and-commitment--a-guide-to-understanding/2006.

28      Robinson DPerryman S and Hayda S. The Drivers of Employee Engagement, Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton, and Report 408.Available from: URL: http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/system/files/resources/files/408.pdf/2011.

29      Rothbard N P. Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly. 2001; 46: 655−684.

30      Saks AM. Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. J. Managerial Psychol. 2006; 21: 600-619.

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

32      Schaufeli W and Salanova M. Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In managing social and ethical issues in organizations, edited by S W Gilliland and DD Steiner. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich. 2007; 5^th Ed: pp. 135−177.

33      Schaufeli WB, A B Bakker and M Salanova. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational Psychological Measur. 2006; 66: 701-716.

34      Xanthopoulou D, A B Bakker, E Demerouti and W B Schaufeli. Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources and work engagement. J. Vocational Behav. 2009; 74: 235-244.

 

 

 

 

Accepted on 21.05.2017          © A&V Publications all right reserved