INTRODUCTION:

Employee engagement refers to an employee's level of commitment, passion, and enthusiasm for their work and their organization. It focuses on establishing an emotional bond between workers and their workplace, generating a sense of motivation and belonging, going beyond basic job satisfaction. Employees that are engaged tend to be more inventive, productive, and devoted to their employers.

They are more likely to put in more extended hours, voluntarily give their all, and stick with the company longer. Conversely, disgruntled workers might exhibit decreased output, increased absenteeism, and a lack of dedication. Engagement differs from satisfaction in that it involves the employee's heart, hand, and mind, as opposed to the transactional relationship induced by satisfaction factors. While a satisfied employee only indicates that he is engaged, an engaged employee strives to do his or her best to improve the organization. Employees who are more engaged with their work outperform their less engaged counterparts because they are more involved with their work, which allows them to develop better solutions, and they are socially connected with their work.

MASLOW HIERARCHY MODEL:

Maslow hierarchy of need model is use to this study to identify the basic needs of the employees in the CPM Metals.

While using this model to identify the employee engagement at CPM Metals and knowing the physiology model to identify the work environment in the organization, in safety need under safe working and job characteristics, and social need under communication and interpersonal relationship, and self-esteem need under rewards and recognition of the employees and self-actualization need under working assessment and carer development of employees at CPM Metals. The factors which are influenced in Physiological Needs are access to basic needs such as fair compensation, health benefits, and a safe working environment and Provision of adequate breaks, rest periods, and appropriate working conditions, In Safety Needs are job security and a stable work environment and clear policies and procedures that ensure the physical and emotional well-being of employees then health and safety measures to address concerns about personal safety at the workplace, In Social Needs under positive workplace relationships, team-building activities, and a supportive work culture and opportunities for collaboration and social interaction among employees the recognition and appreciation for contributions, foster a sense of belonging. In Esteem Needs the recognition of achievements and contributions to boost self-esteem and opportunities for career development, training, and skill enhancement and encouraging a sense of accomplishment through challenging and meaningful work, In Self-Actualization they Providing opportunities for employees to reach their full potential and pursue personal growth and offering autonomy and empowerment in decision-making processes employees encouraging creativity, innovation, and involvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Raw Material Preparation:

The process begins with the procurement of aluminium sheets or coils, which serve as the primary raw material.

The aluminium sheets are inspected for quality and then cut into the desired size and shape using shearing or cutting machines.

Forming and Shaping:

The cut aluminium sheets are then formed and shaped into the desired kitchen products using various manufacturing techniques such as, Stamping: Where the aluminium is pressed into moulds using stamping presses to create specific shapes like pots, pans, or trays and, Deep Drawing: Involves pulling the aluminium sheet into a die cavity to form deeper products like saucepans or cookware with intricate shapes and, Bending and Folding: Utilized to create products like baking sheets, utensils, or kitchen racks by bending or folding the aluminium sheets into the desired shapes.

Surface Treatment:

After forming, the aluminium products may undergo surface treatment processes to enhance their appearance, durability, and corrosion resistance, Anodizing: An electrochemical process that creates a protective oxide layer on the surface of the aluminium, improving its resistance to corrosion and abrasion and, Coating: Application of coatings such as non-stick coatings (e.g., Teflon) or enamel coatings to provide additional functionality and aesthetic appeal and, Polishing or Brushing: Processes to achieve desired surface finishes, such as mirror-polished or brushed finishes, to enhance the visual appeal of the products.

Assembly and Finishing:

Once the surface treatment is complete, the aluminium components may be assembled with other materials (e.g., handles, lids, knobs) to create finished kitchen products. Assembly processes may include welding, riveting, or mechanical fastening techniques to join components securely. Final finishing touches such as polishing, buffing, or engraving may be applied to ensure the products meet quality standards and customer requirements.

Quality Control and Packaging:

Throughout the manufacturing process, quality control checks are performed to ensure that the aluminium kitchen products meet specified standards for dimensions, surface finish, and functionality. Finished products are inspected for defects, imperfections, or irregularities before being packaged. Products are then packaged securely to protect them from damage during transportation and storage, with appropriate labelling and documentation for identification and traceability.

DISCUSSION:

Individual Factors and Work Outcomes of Employee Engagement and explain why it is important as well as to identify variables that are critical to its effective implementation, (Andrew, 2012) about the influence of individual factors of employee engagement on work outcomes using the measures of employee engagement (job and organization engagements) a significant difference between job engagement and organization; with co-employee support as a major individual factor that influences both measures of engagement and the work outcomes. (Kavitha, Dec 2022) is to determine factors influencing employee engagement in the automotive sector. Conceptualization and analysis of the elements of leadership, employee communication, Organizational Culture, Teamwork, Learning and Development, and Employee Engagement and (Nevianto, oct 2021) that there are a variety of proved and unproven ideas, which reflects an intriguing occurrence in mining companies: employee performance is not driven by employee engagement, but rather by punishment and work spirituality. (Lwin, July - December 2017) highlight the importance of organizational factors towards engagement level, help achieving organizational goals, reducing employee turnover rate, decreasing the levels of burn out, and increasing productivity. (Chandani, 2016) about the various factors that impact employee engagement in an organization employee engagement has become a leadership priority as they constantly seek for different methods to keep their work-force engaged. (Mrs Arti Chandani, Dr Mita Mehta, May 2016) this will be useful to any organisation, irrespective of the type of business, to construct strong employee engagement policy with mix of all these factors of employee engagement. (Tanuwijaya, Apr - 2022) is to explore the influence of supervisor support, job characteristics, and there is a positive effect of supervisor support, job characteristics, and authentic leadership on work engagement. (Sundar, july - 2022) The employee engagement provides scope of future reference where by applying numerous engagement aspects and there by decrease in employee turnover and better productivity. (Dr.A.R.Nithya, February 2020) Providing Supportive organizational climate and right time appreciation by superior can enrich the employee engagement, (Kaaviyapriya, 2020) to demonstrate the factors af ecting employee engagement at macro level, i.e., organizational-related factors, personal-related factors, team- related factors and job-related factors. Team-related factors and job-related factors (Othman, July 2019) Employee engagement has become one of the critical episodes for most organization. Due to the challenging economic climate, many organizations are struggling to survive, and engaged employee is the only tool for the organization to gain a competitive edge in the marketplace (1Ms.T.Suhasini, 2018) various factors have been discussed of engagements which are at macro i.e. at organisational level and micro level i.e. at individual level. These variations in factors may arise due to differences in individual and job characteristics, (Chaudhary, 2022) Many organizations are rapidly changing their procedures due to the rapid spread of corona virus (COVID-19) worldwide. Several companies have switched their entire workforce to temporary telecom[1]muting and remote work. Like other employee-characters, there is believed to be a change in employee engagement as well. (Vania, oct - 2022) aims to identify the influence of the seven determinants of employee engagement, namely work environment, leadership, co-worker relationship, training and career development, compensation, organizational policies, and workplace well-being, on the engagement level of Millenial employees in one of the fastest growing industry.

RESULT:

Demographic Details of Employees:

The demographic details of the employees are explained in the chart above. Here, Majority of the respondents are male (447) because this CPM metals is related to aluminium products manufacturing company the management focus mostly on male candidate then the female. And the majority of the respondents are married (476). Because the employees are mostly falls under the category of (26-35 years) and (36-45 years). Majority of respondents education qualification is UG. Mostly the respondents as the (5-10 years) experience. And their monthly income may only fall on (Rs.15,000-Rs.30,000). And the number of earnings of their family is more than one in the employees.

Fig 1 Demographic details of the employees

Figure 1. Demographic details of the employees at CPM metals.

Overall Employee Engagement

In this research the majority of employees are neutrally engaged with CPM Metals, while the remainder either agree or strongly agree with the statement, with a minority disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.

Fig 2 Overall Employee Engagement

Figure 2. Overall Employee Engagement at CPM Metals.

Table No. 1

Overall Employee Engagement
			Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Gender	Male	Count	3	130	310	4	0
	Male	%	0.4%	16.7%	39.8%	0.5%	0.0%
	Female	Count	0	128	202	1	0
	Female	%	0.0%	16.5%	26.0%	0.1%	0.0%
	Total	Count	3	258	512	5	0
	Total	%	0.4%	33.2%	65.8%	0.6%	0.0%

Table No. 2

	Value	Df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	10.535a	3	.015
Likelihood Ratio	11.695	3	.009
Linear-by-Linear Association	6.115	1	.013
N of Valid Cases	778

Difference in overall Employee engagement with respect to demographic factors:

Difference in response among male and female employees on overall engagement:

Both male and female employees are working in the CPM Metals. The level of work engagement differs among them. It is analyzed with the cross tabulation and chi square analysis.

Table 1 and 2 represents that CPM Metals, an aluminium product manufacturing company, primarily focuses on male employees due to their neutral engagement level. A chi-square result of.015 indicates a significant relationship between gender and overall employee engagement, suggesting a difference in the number of male employees who should engage in their work.

Difference in response on Employee engagement among different age group:

There are different types of age groups of employees working at CPM Metals. The level of work engagement differs among them. It is analyzed with cross-tabulation and chi-square analysis.

Table No. 3

			Overall Employee Engagement
			Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
Age	25 years and <	Count	2	141	169	1	0
	25 years and <	%	0.3%	18.1%	21.7%	0.1%	0.0%
	26-35 years	Count	1	94	264	4	0
	26-35 years	%	0.1%	12.1%	33.9%	0.5%	0.0%
	36-45 years	Count	0	23	79	0	0
	36-45 years	%	0.0%	3.0%	10.2%	0.0%	0.0%
	> 45 years	Count	0	0	0	0	3
	> 45 years	%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.4%
	Total	Count	0	5	512	258	3
	Total	%	0.0%	0.6%	65.8	33.2%	0.4%

Table No. 5

			Overall Employee Engagement
Educational Qualification			Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
	Illiterate	Count	0	0	24	15	0
	Illiterate	%	0.0%	0.0%	3.1%	1.9%	0.0%
	Below SSLC	Count	0	1	88	40	0
	Below SSLC	%	0.0%	0.1%	11.3%	5.1%	0.0%
	SSLC	Count	0	2	112	50	1
	SSLC	%	0.0%	0.3%	14.4%	6.4%	0.1%
	UG	Count	0	2	168	77	0
	UG	%	0.0%	0.3%	21.6%	9.9%	0.0%
	PG	Count	0	0	5	2	0
	PG	%	0.0%	0.0%	0.6%	0.3%	0.0%
	Others	Count	0	0	115	74	2
	Others	%	0.0%	0.0%	14.8%	9.5%	0.3%
	Total	Count	0	5	512	258	3

Table No. 7

			Overall Employee Engagement
Income			Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
	Less than Rs.15,000	Count	0	2	98	171	1
	Less than Rs.15,000	%	0.0%	0.3%	12.6%	22.0%	0.1%
	Rs.15,000 - Rs.30,000	Count	0	3	388	66	2
	Rs.15,000 - Rs.30,000	%	0.0%	0.4%	49.9%	8.5%	0.3%
	Rs.30,000 - Rs.45,000	Count	0	0	26	21	0
	Rs.30,000 - Rs.45,000	%	0.0%	0.0%	3.3%	2.7%	0.0%
	Rs.45,000 - Rs.60,000	Count	0	0	0	0	0
	Rs.45,000 - Rs.60,000	%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Above Rs.60,000	Count	0	0	0	0	0
	Above Rs.60,000	%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Total	Count	0	5	512	258	3
	Total	%	0.0%	0.6%	65.8%	33.2%	0.4%

Table No. 9

			Overall Employee Engagement
Experience			Strongly Agree	Agree	Neutral	Disagree	Strongly Disagree
	Less than 5	Count	0	1	182	170	1
	Less than 5	%	0.0%	0.1%	23.4%	21.9%	0.1%
	5-10 years	Count	0	4	290	59	2
	5-10 years	%	0.0%	0.5%	37.3%	7.6%	0.3%
	10-15 years	Count	0	0	30	21	0
	10-15 years	%	0.0%	0.0%	3.9%	2.7%	0.0%
	15-20 years	Count	0	0	10	8	0
	15-20 years	%	0.0%	0.0%	1.3%	1.0%	0.0%
	Above 20 years	Count	0	0	0	0	0
	Above 20 years	%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%	0.0%
	Total	Count	0	5	512	258	3
	Total	%	0.0%	0.6%	65.8%	33.2%	0.4%

Table No. 10

	Value	Df	Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	83.074a	9	.000
Likelihood Ratio	87.281	9	.000
Linear-by-Linear Association	21.738	1	.000
N of Valid Cases	778

Difference in Employee Engagement among Experiences:

The employees of CPM Metals have different levels of experience. The level of work engagement differs among them. Chi-square and cross-tabulation analysis are used to analyze it.

Table 9 and 10 represents the study reveals a significant correlation between employees' experience levels and their responses to engagement statements. Employees with less than 5 years tend to disagree more (45.3%), while those with 5-10 years are mostly neutral (37.3%). This suggests that experience affects employees' perception of engagement, emphasizing the need for tailored strategies for different tenure groups. The chi-square test results also show a significant relationship between experience levels and engagement statements, emphasizing the importance of individual strategies.

Employee opinion on various factors of employee engagement:

The employee engagement includes the following factors such as physiological need, safety need, social need, self-esteem need and self-actualization need. The opinion of employees on all these factors are analyzed and discussed in this section.

Employee opinion on Physiological factor:

The employee’s opinion on WORK ENVIRONMENT is measured in five-point scale and the average response is presented below:

Table No. 11

S. No	Work Environment	Mean response	Rank
1	Lighting is adequate	3.61	5
2	Satisfy with current job	3.62	4
3	Temperature	3.68	3
4	Adequate rest break	3.76	2
5	Drinking water and food	3.85	1

Difference in opinion on Physiological Factor among the various Demographic Factors

The hypothesis presented and tool used:

Table 11 and 12 represents employees prioritize physiological needs like water, food, and rest breaks in the work environment for well-being and satisfaction. Temperature control, job satisfaction, and lighting adequacy follow closely but are perceived as slightly less crucial. Demographic factors like age, gender, income, and experience significantly influence physiological needs, while educational qualifications have no impact.

Employee opinion on Safety Factor

The employee’s opinion on Safe Working And Job Characteristics is measured in five-point scale and the average response is presented below:

Table No. 13

S. No	Safe working and job characteristics	Mean response	Rank
1	Current job pressure	3.23	5
2	ESI and PF facilities	3.23	5
3	Safety facilities	3.33	4
4	Skills and abilities	3.41	3
5	Safety policy and procedure	3.45	2
6	Safety alarm to avoid accident	3.51	1

Difference in opinion on Safety factors among the various Demographic Factor

The hypothesis presented and tool used:

Table No. 13 and 14 represents Employees prioritize safety measures like safety alarms and policies to prevent accidents in their work environment. Safety facilities, ESI and PF facilities, skills, abilities, and job pressure rank slightly lower in importance. The chi square test results show a significant relationship between safety need and demographic factors, with the null hypothesis rejected due to a lesser than 0.05 Asymptotic Significance.

Employee opinion on social factors

The employee’s opinion on Communication and Interpersonal Relationship is measured in five-point scale and the average response is presented below:

Table No. 15

S. No	Communication and Interpersonal relationship	Mean response	Rank
1	Engage with colleagues	3.13	5
2	Communication and team collaboration	3.17	4
3	Knowledge, Skill, Abilities	3.28	3
4	Team building	3.36	2
5	Colleague support for work	3.42	1

Employee opinion on Self-actualization:

Difference in opinion on self-actualization factor among the various Demographic factor:

Table No. 19 and 20 represent Employees prioritize on-the-job training and assessments to enhance productivity and fulfill self-actualization needs. Job satisfaction, career development, and job engagement are crucial. Confidence in job engagement and enjoyment are also important. The chi square test results show a significant relationship between self-actualization need and demographic factors, with the null hypothesis rejected due to a lesser than 0.05 Asymptotic Significance.

FINDINGS:

Overall Employee Engagement:

Different in Overall Employee Engagement among the different Demographic factors:

Age, gender, income and experience significantly influence overall satisfaction. Educational qualification has no significant impact on overall satisfaction.

Employee opinion on Factors of Employee engagement:

Difference in response on various factors of employee engagement among the different Demographic factors.

· The demographic factors like age, gender, income of the employees has an impact on physiological needs.

· The demographic factors like age, gender, education, income and experience has an impact on other factors like safety needs, social needs, self-esteem needs and self-actualization needs.

SUGGESTIONS:

· Consider tailoring employee satisfaction initiatives based on age groups, gender, income levels, and experience.

· Recognize the significance of family-related factors such as marital status, family type, and the number of earning members in family-centric HR policies.

· Periodically reassess employee satisfaction and needs to adapt strategies as the workforce evolves.

CONCLUSION:

Evaluating Current Satisfaction and Engagement Levels of Employees at CPM Metals:

The analysis revealed that demographic factors such as age, gender, income, and experience are associated with overall satisfaction levels among employees. This evaluation provides a baseline understanding of employee satisfaction and engagement levels, serving as a reference point for future improvement initiatives.

Analyzing Key Factors Contributing to Employee Engagement at CPM Metals:

Through the analysis of demographic factors and their relationship with overall satisfaction, it was identified that factors such as age, gender, income, and experience significantly influence employee engagement at CPM Metals. Understanding these key factors provides valuable insights into the drivers of engagement within the organization.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

I would like to thank Mr. Suresh Sankar CEO of CPM Metals at Coimbatore, for their kind support for my research studies.

REFERENCES:

1. T. Suhasini. A study on factors affecting employee engagement in indian it industry. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics. 2018

2. Andrew, M. O. Individual factors and work outcomes of employee engagement. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2012; 40(2012): 498 – 508.

3. Chandani, M. A. Employee engagement: A review paper on factors affecting employee engagement. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016; 9(15). doi: 10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i15/92145.

4. Chaudhary, M. V. Factors affecting virtual employee engagement in India during covid-19. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2022; 51(2022): 571–575.

5. A.R. Nithya, M. Employee engagement: an empirical review paper on factors influencing employee engagement. 2020; 7(2). Www.jetir.org (issn-2349-5162).

6. Kaaviyapriya, M. K. A study about the factors affecting employee engagement and its outcomes. International Journal of Management (IJM). 2020

7. Kavitha, M. J. Factors affecting employee engagement in automobile industry: exploring the mediating role of employee satisfaction. Mathematical Statistician and Engineering Applications. 2022.

8. Lwin, M. Z. Factors affecting employee engagement. International Journal of Multidisciplinary in Management and Tourism.2017.

9. Arti Chandani, Mita Mehta. Employee engagement: a review paper on factors affecting employee engagement. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016.

10. Nevianto, M. A. Factors affecting employee engagement and its relation to employee performance. Journal of Research in Business, Economics, and Education.2021.

11. Othman, R. Factors affecting employee engagement: a study among employees in the Malaysian construction industry. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. 2019.

12. Sundar, M. P. Review paper on factors affecting employee engagement. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science. 2022.

13. Tanuwijaya, M. J. Factors affecting work engagement. Https://www.trijurnal.lemlit.trisakti.ac.id/index.php/ber.2022.

14. Vania, M. B. Factors influencing the engagement of millennial employees in surabaya-indonesia. International Journal of Financial and Investment Studies. 2022.

Received on 26.03.2024 Revised on 11.09.2024

Accepted on 15.01.2025 Published on 29.07.2025

Available online from August 05, 2025

Asian Journal of Management. 2025;16(3):213-221.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5763.2025.00032

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.

S. NO	Demographic factors	Asymptotic Significance	Null Hypothesis	Interpretation
1	Age	.000	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Age and Physiological need.
2	Gender	.000	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Gender and Physiological need.
3	Educational Qualification	.207	Accepted	There is no significant relationship between Educational Qualification and Physiological need.
4	Income	.000	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Income and Physiological need.
5	Experience	.000	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Experience and Physiological need.

S. No	Demographic factors	Asymptotic Significance	Null Hypothesis	Interpretation
1	Age	.000	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Age and Safety need.
2	Gender	.001	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Gender and Safety need.
3	Educational Qualification	.000	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Educational Qualification and Safety need.
4	Income	.000	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Safety need.
5	Experience	.000	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Experience and Safety need.

S.NO	Demographic factors	Asymptotic Significance	Null Hypothesis	Interpretation
1	Age	.000	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Age and Social need.
2	Gender	.000	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Gender and Social need.
3	Educational Qualification	.002	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Educational Qualification and Social need.
4	Income	.000	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between social need.
5	Experience	.000	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Experience and Social need.

Rewards and Recognition	Mean response	Rank
Benefits	3.10	4
Achiever	3.14	3
Satisfied higher authorities	3.20	2
Vital person in organization	3.36	1

S. No	Demographic factors	Asymptotic Significance	Null Hypothesis	Interpretation
1	Age	.033	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Age and Safety need.
2	Gender	.034	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Gender and Safety need.
3	Educational Qualification	.036	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Educational Qualification and Safety need.
4	Income	.000	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Safety need.
5	Experience	.036	Rejected	There is a significant relationship between Experience and Safety need.

	Value	df	Asymp.Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	37.343a	6	.000
Likelihood Ratio	38.020	6	.000
Linear-by-Linear Association	29.638	1	.000
N of Valid Cases	778

S. No	Working assessment and career opportunities	Mean response	Rank
1	No harassment at work	3.03	7
2	Potential towards work	3.05	6
3	Engage on the job work confident	3.26	5
4	Love to work	3.32	4
5	Satisfy career development and work	3.42	3
6	Assessment for enhance productivity	3.47	1
7	On the job training	3.47	1