relationship. The 0 value of r is an indication that there is no association of both the parameters.

The p-value < 0.05 indicates that the association represented by Pearson correlation is statistically
significant. Based on the outcome of correlations, the hypothesis testing is done which depending
on the parameter considered, rejected or accepted the hypothesis.

Chapter 5
Results and Discussion

73
This chapter on result and discussion is organised around explaining or reflecting the hypotheses
and objectives of this study. The purpose of this research study was to provide a deeper
understanding of the factors that may contribute to an enhanced employee, improve the
performance of the employees and therefore may lead to increased productivity and profits.
Accordingly, this chapter aims to answer the following research objectives on basis of the findings
on companies under study. The findings of this research, interpretations and discussion of the
observations are categorised under the following headings.
 To determine the existing level of employee engagement
 To study the attitude of employees toward their jobs
 To determine the level of employee engagement and other related indices as employee
satisfaction, performance, turnover and absenteeism after the companies were made
compliant to the 10 drivers mentioned in chapter 4
 To determine factors leading to employee engagement
 To study the relation between the employee engagement level with employee performance,
satisfaction, turnover and absenteeism on the employees in pre and post test conditions

5.1 Study Population and Companies

In this research work, 240 employees from 6 companies were enrolled. The companies ranged
from small to medium scale manufacturing industries. The research has been confined to a sample
size of 20 to 50 respondents per company across the departments. Questionnaire and schedule were
given to employees in the six participating companies after obtaining the consent of the owners/HR
department officials. Where so ever required the questions were translated in Hindi for the
convenience of the respondents.

5.2 Demographics of the Study Population and Companies

In the study to maximize the representative population of a company the employees from various
departments were enrolled. The study population consisted of employees, which performed
variable tasks. Depending on the company in consideration they belong to but not limited to

74
security personal, loader, tailor, packagers, computer operators, mechanics, drivers, etc.. The
participation of employees was voluntary. Since few of the study subjects were either illiterate or
had very little reading and writing capacity, they were informed of the procedure, explained the
questionnaire in Hindi and were assisted at all conceivable points to increase their participation
and increase the credibility of the research. Inclusion of such an array of heterogeneous
respondents within sample population provided a more comprehensive and practically applicable
interpretation to the study.

5.3 Age and Gender of the Study Population

In the study population, the minimum age of the participant was 21 years and the maximum age
was 64 years. The mean+ SD of the study population was 35.02 + 9.19 years. To reduce the gender
bias in the research work only the male employees were enrolled in this study.

5.4 Educational Qualification of the Study Population

In the study population, the educational qualification of the participants was highly variable due
to the varied nature of the job profile respondents enrolled. The participants ranged from illiterate
to vocational qualification to postgraduate. Further stratifying, the educational qualification, of the
240 respondents, 23 were illiterate, 167 had vocational training, 38 were graduates and 12 were
post graduates.

75
 Educational Qualification of Employees
Studied

Illiterate
Vocational training
Graduates
Post graduates

Fig 5.1: Pie chart representing educational qualification of employees studied.

5.5 Scoring Criterion and its Details

For each question, a scoring method was developed. In this scoring method a scale of strongly
disagree to strongly agree was charted. A strong agreement for a question was designated a score
of 5 while a strong disagreement was scored as 1. The scores of 2, 3, 4 were representative of
disagreement, neutral and agreement respectively. An individual with a strong agreement on all
questions will have a maximum cumulative score of 130 (26x5), whereas an individual who
strongly disagree on all questions will have a score of 26 (26x1). Therefore, the range of score for
the questionnaire varies from a minimum of 26 to a maximum of 130.
Since every participant has to answer the questionnaire twice (in a questionnaire 26 questions were
drafted), therefore, for every respondent 26x 2 = 52 questions were present as variable. For all the
study participants, a total of 12480 variables were collected as data (number of questions
responded by each participant multiplied by total number of participants; 52x240). For the pre test
data the minimum score of all the questions responded by participant was 57 and the maximum
score of all the questions was 86. For the post test data the minimum score of all the questions for
a participant was 63 and the maximum score was 93.

76
Reliability of the questionnaire data in both the pre-test and post test scenario was confirmed using
Cronbach alpha statistical tool. Leedy et al., 2001 states reliability is “the consistency with which
a measuring instrument (questionnaire in this study) yields a certain result when the entity being
measured hasn’t changed”. In another observation, Poisat et al., (2006) states that a possible
measure for reliability is Cronbach alpha coefficient (r), which is a statistical procedure that
determines the correlation of each item with each other. The closer r is to 1, the higher the chance
that questions in the questionnaire are measuring the same trait. The most followed convention is
“>0 .9 – Excellent, > 0.8 – Good, > 0.7 – Acceptable, > 0.6 – Questionable, > 0.5 – Poor, and <
0.5 – Unacceptable” (George and Mallery (2003). The pre-test Cronbach alpha co-efficient
observed in our study for employee engagement was 0.8315, for employee satisfaction was 0.8791,
for employee performance was 0.8194, for employee turnover was 0.9001, for employee
absenteeism was 0.8198. The post-test Cronbach alpha co-efficient observed in our study for
employee engagement was 0.8277, for employee satisfaction was 0.8105, for employee
performance was 0.9132, for employee turnover was 0.8965, for employee absenteeism was
0.7927.

5.6 Pre-test Score for Employee Engagement

The mean+SD of individual questions related to pre test employee engagement (Question 1 to 5),
question no 1 was 2.65+0.81, question no 2 was 2.37+0.82, question no 3 was 2.47+0.86, question
no 4 was 2.56+0.93, question no 5 was 2.63+0.91 (fig 5.2) for the 240 respondents. To calculate
the cumulative mean value for pre test score of employee engagement, first the sum of score from
5 questions (related to employee engagement) of a respondent was calculated. Then this sum of
score from all the respondents was added. This final value was used to calculate the mean and SD
of pre test score for employee engagement. The minimum score for employee engagement taken
cumulatively for all the 5 questions was 8 and the maximum score was 20 among the respondents.
Of the 240 responses from the enrolled participants, the mean + SD of the pre test employee
engagement was 12.7 + 2.24.

77
Fig 5.2 Mean +SD of individual questions related to pre & post test employee engagement
(Question 1to 5)

EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Ques 1 Ques 2 Ques 3 Ques 4 Ques 5
Pre-test 2.65+0.81 2.37+0.82 2.47+0.86 2.56+0.93 2.63+0.91
(mean+SD)
Post-test 2.71+0.84 2.67+0.92 2.63+0.92 2.79+0.98 2.82+0.95
(mean+SD)

Table A: Mean +SD of individual questions related to pre & post test employee engagement

5.7 Post Test Score for Employee Engagement

The mean+SD of individual questions related to post test employee engagement (Question 1to 5),
question no 1 was 2.71+0.84, question no 2 was 2.67+0.92, question no 3 was 2.63+0.92, question
no 4 was 2.79+0.98, question no 5 was 2.82+0.95 for the 240 respondents. To calculate the
cumulative mean value for post test score of employee engagement, first the sum of score from
the 5 questions (related to employee engagement) of a respondent was calculated. Then this sum
of score from all the respondents was added. This final value was used to calculate the mean and
SD of post test score for employee engagement. The minimum score for employee engagement

78
taken cumulatively for all the 5 questions was 9 and the maximum score was 23 among the
respondents. Of the 240 responses from the enrolled participants, the mean + SD of the post test
employee absenteeism was 13.62 +2.42.

5.8 Pre Test Score for Employee Satisfaction

The mean +SD of individual questions related to pre test employee satisfaction (Question 6 to
12), question no 6 was 2.32+0.80, question no 7 was 2.69+1.07, question no 8 was 2.95+1.07,
question no 9 was 3.09+1.05, question no10 was 2.80+0.90, question no 11 was 3.12+1.10,
question no12 was 3.13+1.14 (fig 5.3)for the 240 respondents. To calculate the cumulative mean
value for pre-test score of employee satisfaction, first the sum of score from 7 questions (related
to employee satisfaction) of a respondent was calculated. Then this sum of score from all the
respondents was added. This final value was used to calculate the mean and SD of pre test score
for employee satisfaction. The minimum score for employee satisfaction taken cumulatively for
all the 6 questions was 13and the maximum score was 30 among the respondents. Of the 240
responses from the enrolled participants, the mean + SD of the pre test employee satisfaction was
20.13+ 2.96.

Fig 5.3 Mean+SD of individual questions related to pre & post test employee satisfaction
(Question 6 to 12),

EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION

79
 Ques 6 Ques 7 Ques 8 Ques 9 Ques 10 Ques 11 Ques 12
Pre-test 2.32+0.80 2.69+1.07 2.95+1.07 3.09+1.05 2.80+0.90 3.12+1.10 3.13+1.14
(mean+SD)
Post-test 2.85+0.94 2.85+1.13 3.07+1.04 3.25+1.11 3.15+1.08 3.23+0.96 3.09+0.90
(mean+SD)

Table B : Mean+SD of individual questions related to pre & post test employee satisfaction

5.9 Post Test Score for Employee Satisfaction

The mean+SD of individual questions related to post test employee satisfaction (Question 6 to
12), question no 6 was 2.85+0.94, question no 7 was 2.85+1.13, question no 8 was 3.07+1.04,
question no 9 was 3.25+1.11, question no 10 was 3.15+1.08, question no 11 was 3.23+0.96,
question no 12 was 3.09+0.90 (fig 5.3) for the 240 respondents. To calculate the cumulative mean
value for post test score of employee satisfaction, first the sum of score from the 7 questions
(related to employee satisfaction) of a respondent was calculated. Then this sum of score from all
the respondents was added. This final value was used to calculate the mean and SD of post test
score for employee satisfaction. The minimum score for employee satisfaction taken cumulatively
for all the 6 questions was 14 and the maximum score was 30 among the respondents. Of the 240
responses from the enrolled participants, the mean + SD of the post test employee satisfaction was
21.51+2.94.

5.10 Pre Test Score for Employee Performance

The mean+SD of individual questions related to pre test employee performance (Question 13 to
18), question no 13 was 2.8+0.89, question no 14 was 2.97+1.05, question no 15 was 2.73+1.09,
question no 16 was 2.83+1.14, question no 17 was 2.92+1.16, question no 18 was 2.97+1.19 (fig
5.4) for the 240 respondents. To calculate the cumulative mean value for pre test score of
employee performance, first the sum of score from 6 questions (related to employee performance)
of a respondent was calculated. Then this sum of score from all the respondents was added. This
final value was used to calculate the mean and SD of pre test score for employee performance. The
minimum score for employee performance taken cumulatively for all the 6 questions was 11 and

80
the maximum score was 27 among the respondents. Of the 240 responses from the enrolled
participants, the mean + SD of the pre test employee performance was 17.25 + 3.44.

Fig: 5.4 Mean+SD of individual questions related to pre & post test employee performance
(Question 13 to 18)
EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE
Ques 13 Ques 14 Ques 15 Ques 16 Ques 17 Ques 18
Pre-test 2.8+0.89 2.97+1.05 2.73+1.09 2.83+1.14, 2.92+1.16 2.97+1.19
(mean+SD)
Post-test 3.16 +0.97 3.22+0.99 3.14+1.0 3.12+0.99 3.29+1.10 3.25+1.01
(mean+SD)

Table C: Mean+SD of individual questions related to pre & post test employee performance

5.11 Post Test Score for Employee Performance

The mean+SD of individual questions related to post test employee performance (Question 13 to
18), question no 13 was 3.16 +0.97, question no 14 was 3.22+0.99, question no 15 was 3.14+1.0,
question no 16 was 3.12+0.99, question no 17 was 3.29+1.10, question no 18 was 3.25+1.01 (fig
5.4) for the 240 respondents. To calculate the cumulative mean value for post test score of
employee performance, first the sum of score from the 6 questions (related to employee
performance) of a respondent was calculated. Then this sum of score from all the respondents was
added. This final value was used to calculate the mean and SD of post test score for employee
performance. The minimum score for employee performance taken cumulatively for all the 6
questions was 11 and the maximum score was 27 among the respondents. Of the 240 responses

81
from the enrolled participants, the mean + SD of the post test employee performance was
19.21+3.44.

5.12 Pre Test Score for Employee Turnover

The mean+SD of individual questions related to pre test employee turnover (Question 19 to 24),
question no 19 was 2.74+0.81, question no 20 was 2.67+0.92, question no 21 was 2.71+0.98,
question no 22 was 2.62+0.95, question no 23 was 2.90+1.18, question no 24 was 2.82+1.01 (fig
5.5) for the 240 respondents. To calculate the cumulative mean value for pre test score of
employee turnover, first the sum of score from 6 questions (related to employee turnover) of a
respondent was calculated. Then this sum of score from all the respondents was added. This final
value was used to calculate the mean and SD of pre test score for employee turnover. The minimum
score for employee turnover taken cumulatively for all the 6 questions was 11 and the maximum
score was 27 among the respondents. Of the 240 responses from the enrolled
participants, the mean + SD of the pre test employee turnover was 18.18 + 3.36.

Fig. 5.5: Mean+SD of individual questions related to pre & post test employee turnover
(Question 19 to 24 )

EMPLOYEE TURNOVER
Q. 19 Q. 20 Q. 21 Q. 22 Q. 23 Q. 24

82
 Pre-test 2.74+0.81 2.67+0.92 2.71+0.98 2.62+0.95 2.90+1.18 2.82+1.01
(mean+SD)
Post-test 3.10+0.85 2.91+1.04 3.00+1.05 3.15+1.07 2.98+1.15 3.02+0.95
(mean+SD)

Table D Mean+SD of individual questions related to pre & post test employee turnover

5.13 Post Test Score for Employee Turnover

The mean+SD of individual questions related to post test employee turnover (Question 19 to 24),
question no 19 was 3.10+0.85, question no 20 was 2.91+1.04, question no 21 was 3.00+1.05,
question no 22 was 3.15+1.07, question no 23 was 2.98+1.15, question no 24 was 3.02+0.95 (fig
5.5) for the 240 respondents. To calculate the cumulative mean value for post test score of
employee turnover, first the sum of score from the 6 questions (related to employee’s turnover) of
a respondent was calculated. Then this sum of score from all the respondents was added. This final
value was used to calculate the mean and SD of post test score for employee turnover. The
minimum score for employee turnover taken cumulatively for all the 6 questions was 11 and the
maximum score was 26 among the respondents. Of the 240 responses from the enrolled
participants, the mean + SD of the post test employee turnover was 16.49 + 3.15.

5.14 Pre Test Score for Employee Absenteeism

The mean+SD of individual questions related to pre test employee absenteeism (Question 25 and
26), question no 25 was 2.64+0.94, question no 26 was 2.74+0.90 (fig 5.6) for the 240 respondents.
To calculate the cumulative mean value for pre test score of employee absenteeism, first the sum
of score from the 2 questions (related to employee absenteeism) of a respondent was calculated.
Then this sum of score from all the respondents was added. This final value was used to calculate
the mean and SD of pre test score for employee absenteeism. The minimum score for employee
absenteeism taken cumulatively for all the 2 questions was 2 and the maximum score was 10
among the respondents. Of the 240 responses from the enrolled participants, the mean + SD of the
pre test employee absenteeism was 5.38 + 1.50.

83
Fig 5.6: Mean+SD of individual questions related to pre & post test employee absenteeism
(Question 25 to 26)

EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM
Q. 25 Q. 26
Pre-test 2.64+0.94 2.74+0.90
(mean+SD)
Post-test 2.44+1.06 2.52+1.01
(mean+SD)

Table E: Mean+SD of individual questions related to pre & post test employee absenteeism

5.15 Post Test Score for Employee Absenteeism

The mean+SD of individual questions related to post test employee absenteeism (Question 25 and
26), question no 25 was 2.44+1.06, question no 26 was 2.52+1.01 (fig 5.6 ) for the 240 respondents.
To calculate the cumulative mean value for post test score of employee absenteeism, first the sum
of score from the 2 questions (related to employee’s absenteeism) of a respondent was calculated.
Then this sum of score from all the respondents was added. This final value was used to calculate
the mean and SD of post test score for employee absenteeism. The minimum score for employee
absenteeism taken cumulatively for these questions was 2 and the maximum score was 10 among

84
 the respondents. Of the 240 responses from the enrolled participants, the mean + SD of the post
test employee turnover was 4.97+1.51.

5.16 Comparative Analysis of Pre Test and Post Test Parameters

In our study population of 240 employees, we further compared the pretest and the posttest scores
of the investigated parameters i.e. employee engagement, employee performance, employee
satisfaction, employee turnover and employee absenteeism. We applied paired t-test using SPSS
version 16 for the comparison and p-value < 0.05 has statistical significance.

Table 5.1Comparison of pretest and post test score for parameters studied
Parameter N Pretest Score Post test Scores p-value
Employee Engagement 240 12.7 + 2.24 13.62 + 2.42 <0.001
Employee Performance 240 17.25 + 3.44 19.21+ 3.60 <0.001
Employee Satisfaction 240 20.13 + 2.96 21.51 + 2.94 <0.001
Employee Turnover 240 18.18 + 3.36 16.49 + 3.15 <0.001
Employee Absenteeism 240 5.38 + 1.50 4.97 + 1.51 <0.001

Values expresed as mean + Standard Deviation. p-value < 0.05 considered signifcant after paired
t-test

5.16.1 Employee Engagement

85
In this research analysis it was observed, the employee engagement before the changes were
introduced in the participating companies had a score of 12.7 +2.24 (pre test), which increased to
13.62 + 2.42 after the changes (post test). Therefore with the changes introduced, the level of
employee engagement increased in the study population. Further, this increase of employee
engagement for the pretest and posttest score has statistical significance (p-value< 0.001)
(Table:5.1,Fig:5.7).

Fig.5.7: Bar Graph representing employee engagement in pre test and post test conditions.

Values expressed as Mean+SD. Error bars represent standard deviation

5.16.2 Employee Performance

86
The analysis of employee performance in the study population, before and after the changes
revealed that the score for employee performance increased from 17.25 + 3.44 to 19.21+ 3.60.
Therefore the changes we introduced in these companies have positive impact on the employee
performance. The p-value for employee performance was < 0.001, therefore the difference
between pre and post test score was statistically significant (Table5.1, Fig. 5.8).

Fig.5.8: Bargraph representing employee performance in pre test and post test conditions.

Values expressed as Mean+SD. Error bars represent standard deviation

5.16.3 Employee Satisfaction

87
The employee satisfaction level before the changes (pre test) was 20.13 + 2.96, however when the
changes were introduced in the participating companies (post test) the score for employee
satisfaction increased to 21.51 +2.94 . This increase reflects that participating individuals were
more satisfied with their jobs after the changes were introduced. This positive change in the
employee satisfaction score was statistically significant and had a p-value of 0.001 (Table5.1,
Fig.5.9).

Fig. 5.9: Bar Graph representing employee satisfaction in pre test and post test conditions.

Values expressed as Mean+SD. Error bars represent standard deviation

5.16.4 Employee Turnover

88
The mean + SD of pre test employee turnover was 18.18 + 3.36 (pre test), which after the changes,
decreased to 16.49 + 3.15 (post test). Through the observation, it can be said that all those changes,
which were introduced in the participating companies, lead to a reduced tendency of employees to
leave their job. Further this decrease or difference in the score of pre and post test employee
turnover had a p-value < 0.001, thus this decrease was statistically significant (Table5.1, Fig. 5.10).

Fig. 5.10: Bar Graph representing employee turnover in pre test and post test conditions.

Values expressed as Mean+SD. Error bars represent standard deviation

5.16.5 Employee Absenteeism

89
On comparing the pretest & the posttest score for employee absenteeism in all the individuals of
participating companies, it was observed that absenteeism reduced from 5.38 + 1.50 to 4.97 + 1.51.
This decrease indicates that after the changes made, the employees had a lower rate of absenteeism.
Further, this decrease in level of absenteeism was statistically significant (p-value < 0.001)
(Table5.1,Fig. 5.11).

Fig. 5.11: Bar Graph representing employee absenteeism in pre test and post test conditions.

Values expressed as Mean+SD. Error bars represent standard deviation

5.17 Correlation Analysis of Employee Engagement

The correlation analysis was done using the SPSS version 16 statistical analysis tool . This
correlation analysis was done to analyse, whether an increase or a decrease in employee
90
engagement was associated with an increase or decrease in employee satisfaction or employee
performance or employee turnover or employee absenteeism, we calculated Pearson correlation
co-efficient (r) and its significance (p-value). The numerical value of Pearson Correlation co-
efficient ranges from +1 to -1. A value of r > 0 is an indication of positive linear relationships, r
< 0 is an indication of negative linear relationships while r = 0 is an indication of no linear
relationships’. Further p-value < 0.05 suggests association among employee engagement & any
other variable has statistical significance. These correlations were established against both the pre
test and the post test conditions (Table 5.2, Figure 5.12 –5.19). The scatter plots were drawn using
the excel tool of Microsoft Office (2010 version). The variables were pasted in the columns
corresponding to X-axis and Y- axis in the tab for scatter plot in the excel sheet format. From the
drop down menu the scatter plot was selected and the appropriate labels and scale from better
resolution of scatter was selected. Finally the draw graph option was selected that generated the
scatter plot.

5.17.1 Correlation Analysis of Pre Test Employee Engagement with Pre Test Employee
Performance

91
When we analyzed employee engagement and employee performance in the pre test conditions,
we observed that the Pearson correlation co-efficient (r) between engagement and performance
was 0.2023. This indicates that positive correlation exist among engagement of employees and in
their performance. In other words, increase in employee engagement is accompanied with
associated increase in employee performance. Further, this association among employee
engagement and employee performance has statistical significance. (p value = 0.002) (Table 5.2,
Fig 5.12)
Fig 5.12: The scatter plot for correlation between pre test employee engagement and pre test
employee performance.

In the above given scatter plot, the pre test score of employee engagement for an individual was
plotted on X-axis, the pre test employee performance for the corresponding individual was plotted
at the Y axis. The scatter plot thereby obtained represents a correlation between the pre test
employee engagement and the pre test employee performance of all the 240 respondents. The r
value was found to be 0.2023 and p was observed to be 0.002, therefore the two variables are
significantly correlated and an increase in employee engagement is accompanied with associated
increase in employee performance

5.17.2 Correlation Analysis of Post Test Employee Engagement with Post Test Employee
Performance

92
In this post test analysis, the Pearson correlation coefficient(r) equals to 0.2309. Therefore, this
indicates an increase in employee engagement was associated with a simultaneous increase in the
employee performance under the post test conditions. Further, this association between employee
engagement and employee performance under post test has statistical significance with a p-value
equals to 0.001 (Fig. 5.13, Table 5.2)
Fig.5.13: The scatter plot for correlation between post test employee engagement and post
test employee performance.

In the above given scatter plot, the post test score of employee engagement for an individual was
plotted on X-axis, the post test employee performance for the corresponding individual was plotted
at the Y axis. The scatter plot thereby obtained represents a correlation between the post test
employee engagement and the post test employee performance of all the 240 respondents. The r
value was found to be 0.2309 and p was observed to be 0.001, therefore the two variables are
significantly correlated and an increase in employee engagement is accompanied with associated
increase in employee performance.

5.17.3 Correlation Analysis of Pre Test Employee Engagement with Pre Test Employee
Satisfaction

93
Analysis of pre test employee engagement and pre test employee satisfaction for their association
reveals that both these parameters had a positive correlation i.e. an increase of employee
engagement is associated with an increase of employee satisfaction under pre test conditions. The
Pearson correlation co-efficient (p) between the employee engagement and employee satisfaction
under pre test conditions was found to be 0.4632. Further, this correlation was statistically
significant and had a p-value < 0.001(Table 5.2, Figure 5.14).
Fig.5.14: The scatterplot of correlation between pre test employee engagement and pre test
employee satisfaction.

In the above given scatter plot, the pre test score of employee engagement for an individual was
plotted on X-axis, the pre test employee satisfaction for the corresponding individual was plotted
at the Y axis. The scatter plot thereby obtained represents a correlation between the pre test
employee engagement and the pre test employee satisfaction of all the 240 respondents. The r
value was found to be 0.4632 and p value < 0.001, therefore the two variables are significantly
correlated and an increase in employee engagement is accompanied with associated increase in
employee satisfaction
5.17.4 Correlation Analysis of Post Test Employee Engagement with Post Test Employee
Satisfaction

94
A positive correlation was observed among engagement and satisfaction of employees in post test
conditions. Therefore, an increase of employee satisfaction will lead to an increase in employee
engagement. Statistically defining, this observation, the Pearson correlation coefficient (p)
between employee engagement and employee satisfaction under post test conditions was 0.7102.
Also, this association between the foresaid parameters in post test conditions has statistical
significance since the p-value<0.001(Figure 5.15, Table 5.2). In this study there is an increase
which is significant in an engagement and satisfaction of employees as a result of implementing
the drivers of engagement as pre test value of r=0.4632 and the post test r=0.7102
Fig.5.15: The scatter plot for correlation between post test employee engagement and post
test employee satisfaction

In the above given scatter plot, the post test score of employee engagement for an individual was
plotted on X-axis, the post test employee satisfaction for the corresponding individual was plotted
at the Y axis. The scatter plot thereby obtained represents a correlation between the post test
employee engagement and the post test employee satisfaction of all the 240 respondents. The r
value was found to be 0.7102 and p value < 0.001, therefore the two variables are significantly
correlated and an increase in employee engagement is accompanied with associated increase in
employee satisfaction.

95
5.17.5 Correlation Analysis of Pre Test Employee Engagement with Pre Test Employee
Turnover
When we analysed employee engagement and employee turnover in the pre test conditions, we
observed that the Pearson correlation co-efficient (r) between engagement and turnover was -
0.4551. This indicates that there exist negative correlation among engagement and turnover of
employees, or in other words an increase in employee engagement is accompanied with a decrease
in employee turnover. Further, this association between employee engagement and employee
performance has statistical significance (p value < 0.001) (Table 5.2, Figure 5.16).
Fig.5.16:-The scatterplot for correlation between pre test employee engagement and pre test
employee turnover

In the above given scatter plot, the pre test score of employee engagement for an individual was
plotted on X-axis, the pre test employee turnover for the corresponding individual was plotted at
the Y axis. The scatter plot thereby obtained represents a correlation between the pre test employee
engagement and the pre test employee turnover of all the 240 respondents. The r value was found
to be -0.4551 and p value < 0.001, therefore the two variables are significantly correlated and an
increase in employee engagement is accompanied with associated decrease in employee turnover.

5.17.6 Correlation Analysis of Post Test Employee Engagement with Post Test Employee
Turnover

96
In the post test analysis between engagement and turnover of the employees the coefficient (r) of
Pearson correlation equals to -0.4645. Therefore, this indicates an increase in employee
engagement was associated with a simultaneous decrease in the employee turnover or vice versa
under the post test conditions. Further, this association between employee engagement and
employee turnover under post test has statistical significance (p value <0.001) (Table 5.2, Figure
5.17)
Fig.5.17:-Scatterplot for correlation between post test employee engagement and post test
employee turnover

In the above given scatter plot, the post test score of employee engagement for an individual was
plotted on X-axis, the post test employee turnover for the corresponding individual was plotted at
the Y axis. The scatter plot thereby obtained represents a correlation between the post test
employee engagement and the post test employee turnover of all the 240 respondents. The r value
was found to be -0.4645 and p value < 0.001, therefore the two variables are significantly
correlated and an increase in employee engagement is accompanied with associated decrease in
employee turnover.

5.17.7 Correlation Analysis of Pre Test Employee Engagement with Pre Test Employee
Absenteeism

97
Analysis of pre test employee engagement and pre test employee absenteeism for their association
reveals that both these parameters had a negative correlation i.e. an increase of employee
engagement is associated with a decrease of employee absenteeism or its vice versa under pre test
conditions. The Pearson correlation co-efficient (p) between the employee engagement and
employee absenteeism under pre test conditions was found to be –0.2575. Further, this correlation
was statistically significant and had a p-value < 0.001 (Table 5.2,Figure 5.18)
Fig 5.18:-Scatter plot for correlation between pre test employee engagement and pre test
employee absenteeism

In the above given scatter plot, the pre test score of employee engagement for an individual was
plotted on X-axis, the pre test employee absenteeism for the corresponding individual was plotted
at the Y axis. The scatter plot thereby obtained represents a correlation between the pre test
employee engagement and the pre test employee absenteeism of all the 240 respondents. The r
value was found to be -0.2575 and p value < 0.001, therefore the two variables are significantly
correlated and an increase in employee engagement is accompanied with associated decrease in
employee absenteeism.

5.17.8 Correlation Analysis of Post Test Employee Engagement with Post Test Employee
Absenteeism

98
A negative correlation was observed between employee engagement and employee absenteeism
in post test conditions. Therefore, an increase of employee engagement will lead to a decrease in
employee absenteeism or its vice-versa. Statistically defining this observation, the Pearson
correlation coefficient (p) between employee engagement and employee satisfaction under post
test conditions was -0.539. Also, this association between the foresaid parameters in post test
conditions has statistical significance since the p-value <0.001 ((Table 5.2 Figure 5.19).
Fig.5.19:-The scatterplot of correlation between post test employee engagement and post test
employee absenteeism

In the above given scatter plot, the post test score of employee engagement for an individual was
plotted on X-axis, the post test employee absenteeism for the corresponding individual was plotted
at the Y axis. The scatter plot thereby obtained represents a correlation between the post

test employee engagement and the post test employee absenteeism of all the 240 respondents. The
r value was found to be -0.5390 and p value < 0.001, therefore the two variables are significantly
correlated and an increase in employee engagement is accompanied with associated decrease in
employee absenteeism.

Table 5.2: Correlation analysis of employee engagement with performance, satisfaction,

turnover and absenteeism in pretest & posttest

99
 Employee Engagement

Pretest Posttest

Employee Performance r = 0.2023, p = 0.002 r = 0.2309, p < 0.001

Employee Satisfaction r = 0.4632 , p < 0.001 r = 0.7102, p < 0.001

Employee Turnover r = - 0.4551, p < 0.001 r = - 0.4645, p < 0.001

Employee Absenteeism r = -0.2575, p < 0.001 r =-0.539, p < 0.001

Pearson correlation co-efficient (r) value range from +1 to -1. p-value < 0.05 considered
significant

5.18 Testing of Hypothesis

The study proposed four hypotheses and their alternate hypothesis to validate the impact of
employee engagement on employee performance, satisfaction, turnover and absenteeism. By

100
following the statistical conventions and procedure the proposed hypotheses were tested for their
validity and significance as follows:

5.18.1 Hypothesis 1
The first proposed hypothesis analyses the relationships among engagement and the performance
of employees.
Hypothesis1 (Ho): There is no significant relationship between employee engagement &
employee performance.
Alternate hypothesis 1 (H1): There is a significant relationship between employee engagement and
employee performance.

On the basis of statistical outcome, the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) equivalent to 0.2023 and
its p-value is equivalent to 0.002 in pre test employee performance, and the Pearson correlation
coefficient (r) is equivalent to =0.2309, p<0.001 in post test. It is an indication of a positive
correlation of employee engagement and their performance in both the pretest and posttest
conditions (Table 5.2).

As per the calculation, the p-value for correlation among engagement and performance of the
employees is <0.05 in both the pre test and post test conditions. So null hypothesis(Ho) is rejected
and hence alternate hypothesis (H1) is accepted . Therefore, in our study result shows a positive
significant relationship exists between employee engagement and employee performance. The
correlation examination of ‘employee engagement’ and ‘employee performance’ have suggested
positive relation among them, which is in line with many supportive theories, ( Demerouti et al.,
2001, Karatepe and Olugbade, 2009).

5.18.2 Hypothesis 2
The second proposed hypothes is aims to analyse the relation among engagement and satisfaction
of the employees.

101
Hypotheses2(Ho):- There is no significant relationship among employee engagement and their
satisfaction.
Alternate hypothesis 2 (H1): There is a significant relationship between employee engagement
and their satisfaction.

On the basis of statistical outcome, the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) equivalent to equivalent
to 0.4632, p-value p<0.001 in pre test employee satisfaction the Pearson correlation coefficient (r)
equivalent to is equivalent to 0.7102, p<0.001 in post test. We may conclude about a positive
correlation between employee engagement (EE) and “employee satisfaction” in both pre-test post-
test conditions (Table 5.2).

As per the calculation, the p-value for correlation among employee engagement and their
satisfaction is <0.05 in both pre-test and post-test conditions. Therefore, null hypotheses(Ho) is
rejected & alternate hypotheses is accepted. Therefore, in our thesis a positive significant
relationship exists among employee engagement & employee satisfaction. This finding supports
the researches of William and Anderson (1991), Laschinger et.al.,(2006), which talk about the
strong and a significant positive relation of employee satisfaction & employee engagement, or we
can also say that more the employees will have satisfaction with their job, the more they are likely
to be engaged. These findings suggest that the employees who are more happy and proud of their
work are more immersed in what they do and are more likely to experience feelings of absorption
and dedication, which is in consistent with Hegedorn’s (2000) theory. This theory reports that a
worker who is experiencing job satisfaction, would be more likely to appreciate her or his position
in the organization, resulting in high likelihood of job engagement.

5.18.3 Hypothesis 3
The third proposed hypothesis analyses the relation among employee engagement & employee
turnover.
Hypothesis 3 (Ho): Increase in employee engagement does not result decrease in employee
turnover.
Alternate hypothesis 3 (H1): Increase in employee engagement results decrease in employee
turnover.

102
On the basis of statistical outcome, for Pearson correlation coefficient (r) which is - 0.4551 p-
value p<0.001 in pre test employee turnover and the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) is
equivalent to - 0.4645, p<0.001 in post test, we may conclude about the existence of a negative
correlation among engagement and turnover of the employees in both pre and posttest conditions
(Table 5.2). As per the calculation, the p-value for correlation among the engagement of the
employees and their turnover is <0.05 in both the pre test and post test conditions. So null
hypothesis (Ho) cannot be accepted & hence accept alternate hypothesis. Therefore, as per
the findings engagement and turnover of the employees have negative significant relationship.

5.18.4 Hypothesis 4
The fourth proposed hypothesis analyses the relations among engagement and absenteeism of the
employees.
Hypothesis 4 (Ho): Increase in employee engagement does not result in the decrease in employee
absenteeism.
Alternate hypothesis 4 (H1): Increase in employee engagement results in the decrease in employee
absenteeism.

On the basis of statistical outcome for Pearson correlation coefficient (r) which is - 0.2575,
p<0.001 in pre test employee absenteeism and the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) equivalent to
-0.539, p<0.001 in post test. We may conclude about a negative correlation between engagement
and absenteeism of employees in the pre & post test conditions (Table 5.2). As per the calculation,
the p-value for correlation between employee engagement and employee absenteeism is <0.05 in
both the pre test and post test conditions. So null hypotheses(Ho) gets rejected and alternate
hypothesis gets accepted. Therefore, in this study employee engagement and employee
absenteeism has a significant negative relationship.

Companies having higher employee engagement are among those companies which have higher
revenue earning, this is indicates that higher employee engagement is an important factor for a
successful business. Findings of this study corroborate with the observation of Perrin (2003), and
reported a positive association between employee engagement, performance, reduced absenteeism

103
and turnover , sales growth. This research supports that when organizations provides a workplace
culture with supportive managers & colleagues and job enrichment they have higher possibility of
having the engaged employees, better customer satisfaction, improved service quality, employee
retention performance and productivity. On the contrary, when employees are disengaged or
alienated, organisations experience decline in the above areas.

Figure 5.20: Elements of developing an engaged workforce and their relationship with
success of the organization

(Source: Shamsi et al., 2014)

The major factor which contributes to productivity, performance and long term survival of an
organization is employees engagement. This is in conformance with the past studies of Nowack,

104
2006; Maitland, 2005; Hewitt Associates, 2004. Organizations with highly engaged employees
tend to show greater profits (Woodruffe, 2006).
In the present study, we focused on manufacturing industries, of Western Uttar Pradesh, which
still are following traditional managerial strategies. The statistical analysis of this research reveals
a low score of employee engagement indices (values) in the pre test scenario (Table 5.1 and Figure
5.7-5.11). The findings of this research work are also supported by observation reported by
Towers, (2003), who investigated the employees of large scale industries. Further, when the
companies were made compliant to the 12 points, which were in the interest of employees and of
the employers too, we observed that within a period of six months, then the change in the employee
engagement indices (performance, satisfaction, turnover and absenteeism) were of statistical
significance. The mean scores of the employee engagement, employee satisfaction and employee
performance increased significantly with a p-value <0.05 in the post test scenario. In the same
perspective the employee turnover and absenteeism also decreased significantly (p<0.05) (Table
5.1 and Figure 5.7 to 5.11).
High positive coefficients of correlation in case of employee engagement and employee
performance and also with employee satisfaction, in both pre test and post test conditions
confirmed that the perceived level of “employee engagement” will co­exist with other indices
(Table 5.2 and Figure 5.12 to 5.19). This outcome can be interpreted as, the increase in employee
engagement leads to a simultaneous increase in employee satisfaction and employee performance.
Moreover, when we analyzed the association of employee engagement with employee turnover
and absenteeism, it clearly shows a significant negative relationship i.e. an increase of employee
engagement leads to a decrease in turnover and absenteeism. These findings clearly suggest that
the 10 drivers which we considered for the participating companies made a positive impact on the
engagement levels and are therefore, contributed to a better utilization of the human resources and
creating awareness for higher profits. If we analyse those points, it is evident that they simply
alleviate the negative psychological factors associated with job, tends to reduce work related stress
and physical discomfort and also makes working streamlined and more pleasant. Further, these
changes do not need much financial resources and are affordable by any small and medium scale
industry. Additionally, these are small set-up changes which do not require sophisticated
technological or intellectual know how, making them more feasible from the managerial aspects.
The results are in conformation to previous finding and observation of Sadavarti (2005), Harter et

105
al., (2002). A highly engaged employee will consistently deliver beyond expectations in the
workplace. Engaged employees will stay with the company, be an advocate of the company and
its products and services, and contribute to bottom line business success. They will normally
perform better and are more motivated. There is a significant link between employee engagement
and profitability. They form an emotional connection with the company. This impacts their attitude
towards the company’s clients, and thereby improving customer satisfaction and service levels.
Employee engagement builds passion, commitment and alignment with the organization’s
strategies and goals. It also helps in increasing the loyalty and trust of an employee towards the
organization. Thus engaged employees are vital for any company who want to retain their high
performing employees as they are the asset to an organization. Kakkar & Sharma (2013) has also
proved that there is an intrinsic link between profitability, customer loyalty and employee
engagement. In contrast, organizations with lesser employee engagement are more probable to
have higher employee turnover.
The engagement of employees in an organization affects the mindset of people. Employees who
are engaged believe that they can do wonders for their organizations. Employee engagement is a
powerful predictor of behavior and the performance of employees. Based on our findings we can
say that the companies that do a better job of engaging their employees do surpass their
competitors.

On the basis of the findings of our research, the following practices at the workplace will be of
great help in enhancing employee engagement, performance, satisfaction and will discourage
absenteeism and attrition/turnover.
 The organization should encourage policy of worker’s participation in management so that
the workers can contribute adequately to the system. This can also be done by increasing
the involvement of the executives and the workers in the process of decision making
wherever required and by giving reasonable autonomy to them in the day to day decisions
in the functional areas. The CEO’s vision and the strategic vision of the organisation,
should be communicated to the employees regularly. It is also essential to make Human
Resource policies of the company understandable to employees, particularly to the new
entrants.

106
  Managers should appreciate good performance of their employees and encourage them.
They must recognize the good work of their employees, through monthly or annual staff
awards, and may also do it by acknowledging them publicly. Rewards such as personalized
souvenirs can help construct employee engagement in an inexpensive but effective way.
 It is essential for an organization to develop and maintain a culture of ethics which upholds
& reinforce organization’s brand image among employees.

5.19 A Brief Overview of Proposed Objectives in the Light of Findings of the Study
Considering the objectives which were defined for the thesis, the findings of the study are briefly
presented in this section.

5.19.1 Findings with Respect to Objective 1

First objective of this study was to determine, the existing level of employee engagement. The
existing level/intensity of employee engagement refers to the employee engagement, which
actually exists in the scenario of selected manufacturing industries when the research was initiated.
This was investigated in the study by documenting the data from the questionnaire, in the pre test
conditions (discussed in details in Section 5.6 and Section 5.16.1). In brief, the existing level of
employee engagement was 12.7 + 2.24, out of the total possible score of 25 indicating an average
level of employee engagement and not very high standard deviation, which increased to 13.62 +
2.42 in the post test conditions (table 5.1).

5.19.2.Findings with Respect to Objective 2

Second objective of this research was to study attitude of employees towards their jobs. To address
this objective, we did a thorough analysis of questions in the questionnaire. Based on the answers,
it was seen that the attitude of employees was very casual before the drivers were introduced in
the company but when these drivers were introduced the employees felt more valued and started
taking their job more seriously and felt themselves as a part of the organization and were ready to
give their best for the organization.

107
This finding had been corroborated by the statistical evaluation done in the study which has been
already discussed in section 5.16 and 5.17, table 5.1 and 5.2.

5.19.3 Findings with Respect to Objective 3

Third objective of this research was to study existing performance of the employees. The existing
level of employee performance refers to the employee performance that actually exists in the
scenario of manufacturing industries under study when the research was initiated. This was
investigated in the study by documenting the data from the questionnaire, in the pre test conditions
(discussed in details in section 5.10 and section 5.16.2). In brief, the existing level of employee
performance was 17.25 +3.44 which increased to 19.21+ 3.60 the post test conditions (presented
in table 5.2).

5.19.4 Findings with Respect to Objective 4

Fourth objective\aim of this research was to determine level/intensity of “employee engagement”

after introducing factors leading to employee engagement. This objective investigates the post test
employee engagement. As discussed in section 5.7 and section 5.16.11, employee engagement
increased from 12.7 + 2.24to 13.62 + 2.42 (presented in table 5.2).

5.19.5 Findings with Respect to Objective 5

The fifth objective of the research thesis was to study the impact of the changed
employeeengagement level on the performance of employees.
As discussed in section (5.18.1) where the hypothesis 1 was validated, employee engagement has
a positive impact on employee’s performance, since there is significant change in the performance
with the change in employee engagement (table 5.2). This gives a clear indication that the
engagement is having a direct impact on the productivity of the employees and a more productive
employee is beneficial for the organization. As evident from this research, positive impact of
employee engagement in the organizational performance is undeniable. The companies should

108
 strive to develop, nurture employee engagement, as it requires the efforts by both employee and
employer. Then only the organisation can develop a healthy two way relationship. Therefore, we
can say it is a barometer which helps in determining the type of association an employee possess
with the organization and it is mostly organizations who possess a larger responsibility to create a
culture and an environment to earn and maintain this partnership and to have an equation which is
a win-win equation.

5.19.6 Findings with Respect to Objective 6 of the Study

Driver Assessed from PreTest PostTest

Q.No. of Mean + SD Mean + SD p-value
Questionnaire
Communication 2 2.37+0.82 2.67+0.92 <0.05
Recognition 3 2.47+0.86 2.63+0.92 <0.05
Workers participation in management 4 2.56+0.93 2.79+0.98 <0.05
Support 10 2.80+0.90 3.15+1.08 <0.05
Health and safety: Proper lightning 12 3.12+1.10 3.23+0.96 <0.05
aeration and ventilation at work place,
hygienic and clean washrooms, safe and
clean drinking water
Human factor and Ergonomic work 13 2.80+0.89 3.16+0.97 <0.05
place
Result based Incentive 16 2.83+1.14 3.12+0.99 <0.05

Table 5.3: Pre and post test score for drivers of employee engagement assessed from
questionnaire.

109
 4.5
Drivers of employee engagement in pre and post test condi ons Pre test condi ons
Post test condi ons

3.5

2.5

1.5

1
Communica on Recogni on Workers par cipa on Support Health and safety Ergonomic Work place Result based Incen ve

Figure 5.21: Bar graph for comparison of drivers of employee engagement in pre and post
test conditions

The sixth objective of the research was to determine factors leading to employee engagement.
With this objective in focus, we emphasized on drivers of employee engagement as
communication, recognition, workers participation in management, support, human factor,
ergonomic work place, result based incentive and health and safety which includes proper
lightning aeration and ventilation at work place, hygienic and clean washrooms, safe and clean
drinking water (detailed in 4.14). The pre test indices of these factors were significantly lower than
the post test conditions (table 5.3, figure 5.21). In the pre test conditions the index for
communication between the employer and the employees was 2.37+0.82 which increased to
2.67+0.92when the communication was increased through steps detailed in section 4.14.3. This
level of increment for communication was assessed on the basis of response from question 2 of
the questionnaire. Similarly, recognition and workers participation in management, which were
assessed from question 3 and 4 increased significantly to 2.63+0.92 and 2.79+0.98 respectively in
the post test conditions i.e. after the changes mentioned in section 4.14.2 and 4.14.3 were made.
Also the support to employees increased significantly in post test conditions as evaluated from
question 10 of the questionnaire. Further, as the improvisations that lead to better health and safety
at the workplace as proper lightning aeration and ventilation at work place, hygienic and clean
washrooms, safe and clean drinking water were made, (detailed in 4.14.5) employees had a sense
of being in a more health friendly and safe conditions. With these changes the pre test score as
evaluated from question 12 of questionnaire was 3.12+1.10 which increased to 3.23+0.96 in the
post test conditions. The changes that made the working place more ergonomic (detailed 4.14.9)
110
increased the index from 2.80+0.89 in pre test conditions to 3.16+0.97 in post test conditions as
assessed from question 13. The affect of changes mentioned in 4.14.10, that relate to result based
incentives were evaluated from question 16 and it was observed the post test index increased to
3.12+0.99 from 2.83+1.14 in the pre test conditions.

35
Sum of Indices of Drivers proposed

30

25

20

15

10
5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25
Employee Engagement

Figure 5.22: Scatter plot with trend line showing relationship of employee engagement with
proposed drivers

In a further analysis, we tried to elucidate the association of the employee engagement with the
proposed changes that were made and investigated as the drivers of employee engagement in this
study. It was observed that the cumulative effect of all the drivers proposed (communication,
recognition, workers participation in management support, health and safety, proper lightning
aeration and ventilation at work place, hygienic and clean washrooms, safe and clean drinking
water, ergonomic work place, result based incentive) had a linear relationship with employee
engagement (Figure 5.22). On the basis of this finding of linear relationship between the employee
engagement and drivers proposed it is very much obvious and evident that the changes proposed
critical to increase the employee engagement in a company. When we proposed these changes, it
lead to a multifaceted improvement in the areas which directly influence the relationship between

111
the employee and the employer. Through these changes or drivers, the communication improved
and the employee felt more connected to employer. Also, drivers as recognition and workers
participation in the management made the employee to feel more involved and important in his
company. The changes that were influencing the ergonomic comfort of the workplace and made
the workstation more hygienic, health and safe also had a significant role in increasing the
employee engagement. Additionally, the result based incentive strategy that was adopted as a part
of this research made the work more lucrative and tempting in terms of monetary benefits. Overall,
all these drivers contributed to enhance the employee engagement that is corroborated from the
linear trend shown in graph fig.5.22 and also from the increased post test indices shown in table
5.3. Thus, with all the statistical support, graphical representations and textual description
mentioned above, we can conclude that employee engagement is critically dependent on drivers
we proposed in this study. Hence, the study recommends that these aspects should be given
importance while making policies of organisation in order to stay ahead and progressive in this
competitive era.

5.20 Opinion of Management of Participating Companies for this Study

Six companies participated in this research and after the study was completed, an informal
conversation with us, the senior heads of these companies admitted that the changes proposed
(drivers of employee engagement) in this study made a remarkable effect on the working
environment of their companies. The company heads specifically mentioned the increased
performance and decreased absenteeism in their employees after the study. They further admitted
that their profit has increased after the study approximately 5-10%.

5.21 Applications of Findings of the Study

To the best of our knowledge this may be the first study from Western Uttar Pradesh to provide
the information on trends of employee engagement in the region. The important applications of
the findings from this research are:
 The findings of the research can be used to provide directions for the development of more
efficient and productive human resource modules in the existing and new industries

112
  Provides a statistical approach to confirm a positive correlation of employee engagement
with employee performance and satisfaction and a negative correlation of engagement with
turnover and absenteeism. Thus, these findings provide systematic and statistical validity
to emphasize employee engagement in industries to increase their profits.
 With increased globalisation and advent of multinationals in the Indian markets, it is
important to conserve the market for Indian industries. If these industries adopt simple
changes which had been suggested as the 10 drivers, they may be able to flourish and
compete with the big players.
 These findings and observations of the study could serve as a blue print for improving
employee engagement in organization.
 The study supports the findings of existing studies and fills a gap in the literature in relation
to the debate on the impact of engagement on the performance.
 The study contributes to increase the understanding of the complex relationship between
engagement, satisfaction, and performance and to aid managers to tailor their efforts
towards enhancing the engagement level of their subordinates.
 This study serves a yardstick/benchmark for the organizations/ companies to evaluate or to
measure engagement. “While some companies are currently measuring engagement, many
are not” (Attridge, 2009), and the present study provides as a foundation for direct and
constant evaluation for the employee engagement.

5.22 Future Research Perspectives

Several opportunities for future research emerge from the present study:

 The instruments i.e., questionnaire and schedule used in this study can be used to carry out
research in industries other than manufacturing industries.

 Further research could be done to find out various other effective drivers of employee
engagement.

113
  The findings and interpretations suggest that future researches shall not only be done in
this direction, in which the employee engagement has an impact on employees
performance, but also in the vice-versa relationship, as it is found that employee
engagement is an effective performance enhancer.

 The future researches should emphasize on the longitudinal designs which study the change
in employee engagement, job satisfaction and employee performance and the various
causes for the change, which may be advantageous for the HR professionals in the
manufacturing industry.

 The observational period for the present study was 6 months in future the studies can be
conducted with an increased time period.

 Several potential concepts are explored in this research, there may be scope in the further
researches to discover the overlap of employee engagement with other concept like
organisational identification, CSR and organizational citizenship.

5.23 Limitations of the Study

In this research, the following assumptions may have led to some variability in the factuality of
findings and interpretation, and therefore may contribute to the limitations of this study.
 The response of the employees involved in this survey was assumed that it is unbias, honest
and unambiguous.
 It was the assumption that the employee engagement data employee satisfaction data,
turnover/attrition data and performance data collected from the employees of the
participating companies are representative of the engagement for any given year.
 The methods involved in the survey delivery and succeeding response collection were
assumed to be effective, duress and unbias and accurate.
 Initially, we enrolled 10 companies for the study, but as the research progressed, we had to
exclude 4 companies on account of their non responsiveness and reluctance for

114
 participation. So, after exclusion, we finally had 6 companies and 240 participants, which
might not be considered as the true representative of manufacturing sector.
 The list of the chosen antecedents of engagement were made on the basis of the existing
literature on engagement, an initiative was taken to include factors important especially for
workers in manufacturing industries. The utmost care has been taken in order to include
the most crucial driver of engagement. Though, the knowledge related to the specific
drivers of employee engagement it is limited, there might be a probability of missing out
some important antecedents.
 Self-reported questionnaire was also a limitation of the study: Wallbott& Scherer (1989)
reported that “inspite of its usefulness in measuring emotion, the self-report methodology
may lead to inflated relationships among variables, and thus the data in this study may be
biased by common method variance (CMV) in statistical analysis.” However, this
limitation can influence the present reponses, therefore the researcher maintained
confidentiality of individual responses while collecting data to attenuate the effect of
common method variance (CMV).

5.24 Conclusion

Employee engagement has been one of the most discussed as well as challenging aspect faced by
most of the companies in present corporate world. Today organizations are trying to achieve more
return on investment, profits, improve quality, reducing costs, achieve maximum output both in
terms of human resource and materialistic facets. Managers unambiguously agree that this century,
demands more efficiency and productivity than in any other times in history. Enhancing the
employee engagement to create a positive impact on the efficiency of employee has been the focus
of the managerial strategies to cater to the changed market scenario in the recent times. Companies
that have higher percentage of employee engagement are probably the ones who have higher
revenue earning, which beyond doubt shows that higher employee engagement to be the major
contributory part in a successful business. Findings of this research work support the observation
of Perrin (2003), “who investigated over 35,000 employees across dozens of companies, and
reported a positive association between employee engagement, sales growth, performance,

115
reduced absenteeism and turnover. This research supports that when organizations provide a
workplace culture with psychological conditions of meaningfulness (job enrichment, work-role
fit), safety (supportive manager and co-workers) and availability (resources) they are more likely
to have engaged employees, improved service quality, better customer satisfaction, employee
retention, productivity and financial performance. By contrast, when employees are alienated or
disengaged, organizations experience decline in all of these areas.”

Employee engagement importance cannot be denied in an organisational setting. This research

study shows that health and safety, ergonomic workplace, communication, participation in
management, reward, support, results-based incentives, proper lightning, aeration and ventilation
at work place, hygienic and clean washrooms, safe and clean drinking water appear to effect the
level and intensity of employee’s engagement. So, it is important to consider these factors while
making organizational policies. Additionally, a direct positive relationship is found among
employee engagement with employee satisfaction, performance and turnover and a negative
relationship with employee absenteeism. Finally, it is hoped that the present research study and
the additional research in future will continue to discover how engaging the employees can add to
the well-being and productive attitude of the organisation’s most valuable asset the human
resources.
The observations of this research clearly indicate that the engagement of the employees have a
direct impact on productivity and their output is healthy and gratifying for both employees as well
as organisation.
As evident from this research the positive impact of the employee engagement in an organisational
performance is undeniable. Company should strive to develop and nurture employee engagement,
as it requires the efforts by both employee and employer. Then only the organisation can develop
a healthy two way relationship. Therefore we can say it is a barometer that helps in determining
association an employee possess with the organisation and it is mostly the organizations who
possess a larger responsibility to create a culture and an environment to earn and maintain this
partnership and to have an equation which is a win-win equation. To conclude, the present study
throws light on many indices that affect the level/intensity of employee engagemnt in the
organisation. Important markers of employee engagement are health and safety, ergonomic
workplace, communication, job security, participation in management, reward, support and
recognition, results-based incentives, training and development, proper lightning, aeration and
116
ventilation at work place, hygienic and clean washrooms, safe and clean drinking water, which
must be undertaken in order to improve employees performance. Hence, the scholar recommends
these aspects must be taken in to consideration while designing organizational plans, policies and
processes in order to stay ahead and progress.

117