A Project report On At J.K. Cement, Nimbahera (Chittorgarh). Submitted to Rajasthan Technical University In the partial fulfillment for the award of Master Degree of Business Administration Session 2007-2009 Submitted By: Under the Guidance of: Mr. Manu Vijay Mr. Rahul Jain MBA III sem.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
AProject report
On
AtJ.K. Cement,
Nimbahera (Chittorgarh).
Submitted toRajasthan Technical University
In the partial fulfillment for the award of Master Degree ofBusiness Administration
Session 2007-2009
Submitted By: Under the Guidance of: Mr. Manu Vijay Mr. Rahul Jain MBA III sem.
Vision School of Management(Affiliated to Rajasthan Technical University & Approved by AICTE)
J. K. Cement manufactures and markets cement and clinker for both domestic as well as exports markets.
1.2 PRESENT CAPACITY AND PERFORMANCE
1.2.1 CLINKER PRODUCTION
Ist Plant / Kiln 1200 Tone Per Day (TPD)
IInd Plant / Kiln 1800 TPD
IIIrd Plant / Kiln 5000 TPD
IVth Plant at Mangrol 2200 TPD
Total Capacity 10200 TPD
1.2.2 PRODUCTION ANALYSIS TABLE: IN TONS
Year Clinker Cement
2005-06 3170268 3511022
2006-07 2907196 3640823
2007-08 2917045 3765855
1.2.3 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS: IN Rs.
Year Turnover PBT
2005-06 1108.7 52.2
2006-07 1529.7 272.0
2007-08 1812.8 346.6
1.3. MANAGEMENT SET- UP
1.3.1 Corporate Level- Kanpur
Chairman - Dr Gaur Hari Singhania
Managing Director - Shri Y P Singhania
Group Executive President - Shri R G Bagla
1.3.2Unit Head Level- Nimbahera
President - Shri.D.Ravisankar
J.K.Organization
J.K. Cement ltd.
J.K. Cement Works (Grey Cement)1. J.K. Cement works, Nimbahera2. J.K. Cement works, Mangrol3. J.K. Thermal Power Plant, Bamania4. J.K. Thermal Power Plant, Nimbahera
Project: J.K. Cement Project, Karnataka
J.K. White Cement WorksJ.K. Grey Cement Works
Gotan,Nagaur,
1.4. J K Marketing Organisation & R T C - North
1.4.1 J K MARKETING ORGANIZATION
The Head office of Marketing Department of J K Cement Ltd. is at Delhi,
which is headed by Sr. V P (Marketing-Grey Cement) and Sr. V P (Marketing-
White Cement). The White Cement is sold all over India and the Grey Cement
is sold in the States of Rajasthan, M.P., U.P., Haryana, Punjab, Gujarat and
Delhi. With the commissioning of J. K Cement Project, Karnataka Southern
region will also be covered for Grey Cement.
1.4.2 Regional Training Centre
The Regional Training Centre - North is a premier training centre of North
India promoted with assistance from World Bank, DANIDA and Govt. of India
as a unique HRD project in Cement Industry is also attached with J K cement
Works as Lead Plant. It is equipped with modern training aids and caters to the
skill enhancement and competency developmental needs of more than 20
cement and other plants. It has trained over 5000 technical and managerial
personnel during the last 12 years.
The centre has conducted many tailor-made in-house programs for cement and
other industries in India and abroad including for Oman Cement, Oman and
Star Cement,
1.5. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Educational services: Construction of rooms in Govt. College at Nimbahera.
Running JK Institute of Technology, ITI in five trades affiliated to NCVT.
Running 10+2 CBSE affiliated school
Running Regional Training Centre for Cement technocrat’s aided by WB & DANIDA.
Various constructions in nearby govt. Schools of Chittorgarh district.
We are involved in girls school (under construction) and committed reasonable financial contribution for above
Medical services Rs. 36 lacks contribution for the construction of govt. Hospital at
Nimbahera. Ambulance to govt. Hospital. Free facility of pathological laboratory for the persons of surrounding area. Financial contribution to various NGOS for medical camps in the district. Financial contribution for construction of dispensary & health centre in
nearby villages. Free Homeopathic consultancy/medicines for the patients of nearby area.
Religious services
Radhakrishna temple at colony premises.
Prayer hall in hanuman temple in Nimbahera.
Bheemkeshwar temple in staff colony.
Dharmashala at Bhanwarmata (tourist/ religious place).
8 rooms for Dharamshala at Pashupati Nath temple in Mandsaur (M.P.).
Various temples in number of nearby villages.
Sports services
Sports infrastructure like wooden badminton court, table tennis court,
billiard room, and cricket ground, volleyball ground in colony campus.
Sponsoring all India youth football, volley ball and badminton tournaments.
Sponsoring inter-district tournaments.
Arranging summer camps for various sports.
Other social services
Construction of approach roads in and around villages of mining
area.
Digging of tube wells.
Supply of tube well pumps.
Construction of water tanks.
Supply of drinking water in tankers in nearby needy places during
summer.
Regular plantation in plant, colony and nearby villages.
Direct and indirect employment to thousands of persons of
surrounding area.
Financial helps to NGOS.
Financial aid to organize religious festivals by municipals
Cement
Cement are bonding consisting essentially of compounds of calcium oxide with
silica alumina and iron oxide which can harden in air and water.
In general cement is a generic name for powdered materials, which initially have
plastic flow when mixed with water or other liquid but form a solid structure in
several hours with varying degree of strength & bonding properties, which
continue to improve with age.
History of Cement
Joseph Aspendence discovered cement in1824.
Materials used were Lime, Brick bed marl volcanic lava ash and water.
Burn these materials in furnace at 1200C and ground with gypsum.
BIS covers 14 types of cement. 9 are commercially produced in India. Major cements are OPC, PPPC, PSC. Cements are classified into four groups
o General purpose cement
o Cements to meet environmental & climatic needs.
o Cements to meet the service conditions in construction.
o New cements.
1.5.1 Types of cementCEMENT SYMBOL STANDARD
Ordinary Portland Cements 33 grade 33OPC IS: 269-1989
Ordinary Portland Cements 43 grade 43OPC IS: 8112-1989
Ordinary Portland Cements 53 grade 53OPC IS: 12269-1987
Portland Slag Cements PSC IS: 455-1989
Low Heat Portland Cement LHC IS: 12600-1989
Rapid Hardening Portland Cement RHC IS: 8041-1990
Sulphate Resisting Portland Cement SRC IS: 12330-1989
Portland Pozzolana Cement
(Fly ash based)
PPC (Fly ash
based)
IS: 1489(Part1)-1991
Portland Pozzolana Cement
(Calcined clay based)
PPC (Calcined
clay based)
IS: 1489(Part2)-1991
Masonry Cement MC IS: 3466-1988
High Alumina Cement HAC IS: 6452-1989
Supersulphated Cement SSC IS: 6909-1990
White Portland Cement WPC IS: 8042-1989
Oil Well Cement OWC IS: 8229-1989
Hydrophobic Cement HC IS: 8043-1991
CLASSIFICATION OF CEMENT
S.No CLASSES OF CEMENT CEMENT1. General purpose cement OPC, PPC, PSC, HSC
2. Cements to meet environmental & climatic con-
dition needs
SRC, HAC, SSC, HC
3. Cements to meet the service conditions in con-
structions
HAC, LHC, RHC, HSC,
OWC, WPC
4. New cements Portal cements, trief ce-
ment and soral cements and
rice husk ash cement
4.1.CORPORATE PROFILE
Vision –
“To be a premium conglomerate with a clear focus on each business.”
Mission –
“To deliver superior value to our customers, shareholders, employees and society at
large.”
Values –
“Respect for the individual, integrity, speed, simplicity, seamlessness, self
assuredness and a 100per cent commitment are the values we value.”
Management Philosophy –
Customer Satisfaction
Always invest in latest technology
Huge distribution network creation
Expansion through balancing equipment
Constant focus on cost control & quality
Invest in Managers & Develop people skills
Stability of Executive Management & Low Employee Turnover
Social Welfare – A Priority
Salient Features –
1. First dry process plant in India.
2. Latest process precalcinator technology for clinker.
3. UNT –II was first PLC controlled cement plant in India.
4. Most modern and sophisticated central control room for entire process
control from one point.
5. First Fuzzy Logic Control kiln and Cen-scanner for monitoring of kiln
shell temperature in India.
6. On-line quality control by X-ray analyzer.
7. First computerized management system in Indian cement industry.
8. Now computerized management system extended to stores, purchase,
sales, accounts, and personnel functions.
9. Continuous on going process of training & development.
4.2.COMPANY STRENGTH
We enjoy a number of key competitive advantages, which have helped us maintain our
position as one of the leading cement manufactures in the Northern Indian cement
market. Our principal strengths and competitive advantages are as follows:
Leading position in attractive Northern India grey cement market:
Based on CMA data, Northern Indian cement manufacturers have consistently
operated at the highest levels of capacity utilization among India’s five regions. We
believe this reflects the strong demand in Northern India for cement products relative
to supply. Further, based on capacity expansions announced by cement manufacturers,
we except cement plants in Northern India to continue to operate at high utilization
levels and anticipate continued strong demand for our grey cement products in the
near and medium-term. We believed that we are well positioned to take advantage of
this demand, as the fourth largest grey cement manufacturer in Northern India, and the
largest grey cement manufacturer in the state of Rajasthan.
Second largest white cement producer in India:
White cement accounted for 16.6% of our total revenue and 35.2% of adjusted EBITDA from our cement operations in fiscal 2005, and 15.5% of revenues and 26.7% of our adjusted EBITDA from our cement operations in the six months ended September 31,2005.
Unlike grey cement, the white cement industry in India is highly concerned with the two
largest players accounting for the substantial majority of India’s production capacity.
Consequently, prices of white cement have been relatively less volatile and sales of white
cement have generated more stable cash flows for us even during industry downturns in
grey cement. We also believe our position as the second largest producer of white cement
in India, together with our nationwide delivery network, significantly enhances the
overall brand image of JK Cement.
Proximity and access to large reserves of high quality limestone:
We have access to large reserves of limestone for both our grey and white cement operations, which we believe are sufficient to sustain our operations well into the future. Based on independent geological surveys of different mines during 1996 to 2001, we believe that our limestone reserves are sufficient to support our current and planned capacity for approximately 40 years for both grey and white cement. (Put in risk assuming we are able to renew our existing leases upon their expiry). As one of the first cement producers in Northern India, we were able to choose our limestone reserves in an area with high quality limestone resources. In addition to allowing us to produce white cement, which requires high quality limestone, it also provides us with a cost advantage, as we are not required to purchase sweeteners to improve the quality of limestone.
Further, our manufacturing plants are in close proximity to our limestone reserves, resulting in lower transportation costs. Finally, our mines that supply our white cement plant at Gotan also have a supply of white clay, an important additive necessary for white cement production.
Experience and technical know-how:
We have 30 years of experience in the Indian cement industry, which we believe provides
us with the skills to maximize production efficiency, expand production capacity quickly
and reduce costs. Over the years, we believe that we have developed long-term customer
relationship and a strong reputation for quality.
Further, we have a stable and experienced middle and senior level management team,
many of whom have been working in our cement operations for more than 20 years. Our
Nimbahera manufacturing facility was chosen by World Bank and the Danish
International Development Agency as one of the four training centers in India to serve as
the “Regional Training Center” for Northern India.
There are only four regional training centers for the cement industry in India, and we
believe our operation of the training center provides us with access to state of art training
aids, live working models, and technical expertise developed by well known national and
international cement producers.
4.3.COMPANY ACHIEVEMENTS
The key events in respect of the JKSL Cement Division and the Company are set forth
below:
YEAR
1975
The grey cement plant at Nimbahera, with an initial capacity of 0.3 MnTPA, commenced
commercial production
1979
A second production line was added at Nimbahera, increasing the capacity from 0.3
MnTPA to 0.72 MnTPA
1982
A third production line was added at Nimbahera, increasing the capacity from 0.72
MnTPA to 1.14 MnTPA
1984
Lime-based white cement plant was established at Gotan, with an initial capacity of 0.05
MnTPA
1987
A captive thermal power plant was installed at Bamania
1988
A pre-calciner was installed at Nimbahera, increasing the total capacity to 1.54 MnTPA
1990
The JKSL Cement Division instituted Architect of the Year award
1994
(i) The Company was incorporated
(ii) The Regional Training Centre for Northern India, which was established at the
Nimbahera plant of the JKSL Cement Division with aid from the World Bank and the
Danish International Development Agency, commenced service
2000
The total capacity of the white cement plant at Gotan was increased to 0.3 MnTPA as a
result of continuous modernization and up gradation
2001
A new grey cement plant with a capacity of 0.75 MnTPA was installed at Mangrol
2004
(i) The Company acquired the JKSL Cement Division
(ii) The total capacity of the grey cement plant at Nimbahera was increased to 2.8
MnTPA as a result of continuous modernization and upgradation
2005
(i) The Company allotted 7,426,950 Equity Shares to the shareholders of JKSL pursuant
to the AAIFR order dated January 23, 2003
(ii) The Company was listed on the BSE
2006
-JK Cement has finalised the issue price of its recently concluded initial public offering
(IPO) at Rs 148 per share.
-Jk Cement Limited has informed that w.e.f. 16.12.2006 Mr. Manish Bajpai Company
Secretary and Compliance Officer of the company has resigned and in his place Mr.
Ashish Sabharwal has been appointed as Company Secretary.
2007
-Jk Cement Limited has appointed Dr. K.B. Agarwal as Additional Director of the
Company to hold office until the conclusion of next Annual General Meeting.
4.4.CORPORATE PLAN
Increase Power generation capacity to 50MW by 2006-2007. Establish one
R&D center for cement & its applications such as concrete, tiles etc. To achieve
specific power consumption level of 85units per tone of cement. O.k. Cement
has excellent track record of HR Planning and Development. The initiative
taken for setting up Regional Training Center (RTC) as Nimbahera (in the
campus of J.K. Cement works) is an indication of Management’s commitment
towards HRD. The Center at Nimbahera is one of the four Rat’s in India and
caters the manpower development needs, not only to J.K. Cement Works, but
also supports cement industry in Western M.P., Rajasthan, Haryana, Jammu &
Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab (i.e. Northern Region).
1. First Five-Year Plan (1951-56): -
In the beginning of the first five-year plan, there were 22 factories with a
production was 2.69million tones only. The target set for the first five-year plan
was 5.02million tones. Therefore, capacity enhancement was the main objective
of this plan.
2. Second Five-Year Plan (1956-61): -
Due to the rising demand a the end of the first plan period government imposed
a sort of control of issuing an order under section 18G of the industries
(Development & Regulations) Act, 1951, making it necessary for all cement
producers to sell their total production to State Trading Corporation of India for
distribution to consumers at uniform price fixed by the Government from time
to time on F.O.R. destination basis.
3. Third Five-Year Plan (1961-66): -
This plan marked for industrial growth led the government to anticipate a heavy
shortage of cement and to meet this challenges. Expansion programs were
undertaken:
To make survey for the prospecting and providing cement grade limestone
in the country.
To set up unit in public sectors to achieve plan targets.
To support all the ancillary and subsidiary activities connected with cement
and make efforts for its growth and development.
4. Policy of 1980:
National Highway Project, new railway lines, bridges, irrigation canals and
dams reshaped the country and projected a new face of the industrialist’s
scenario. The government of India had to decide start a partial decontrol of
cement industry and subsequently to fuller decontrol of it. The new policy
granted cement manufactures a profit of about 12% in their investments so that
rapid increase in cement production can take place to bridge the gap of demand
and production capacity.
Greenfield Grey Cement at Karnataka in Jaykaycem Ltd
A Greenfield Grey Cement project is being set up in Jaykaycem Ltd. (wholly
owned subsidiary of the Company) at Mudhol in the State of Karnataka with a
capacity of 3.5 million tones at an estimated project cost of Rs.1050 crores
(Rs.950 crores to be spent in first phase and Rs.100 crores in second phase for
putting up a Grinding Unit at Bellary). The project cost includes cost of Captive
Power plant of 50 MW. Foundation stone of the plant was laid on 8th December;
2007.The Company is in process of obtaining various approvals. Necessary land
has already been acquired and orders for long delivery items of plant and
equipments have already been placed. Financial closure of the project is likely to
be completed by end of September 2007. The Company proposes to invest about
Rs. 400 Crores in the said project from its internal accruals. A total sum of
Rs.76.40 crores has already been spent on the project. Barring unforeseen
circumstances, the project is expected to be on stream in first quarter of 2009.
During the year, the Company has acquired from IDBI the assets of Nihon
Nirmaan Ltd. at Gotan for Rs.42 crores. The Company has decided to utilize this
facility to produce Grey cement. It has been decided to revenue these facilities at
an estimated cost of Rs.70 crores the capacity of plant is expected to be 4 Lacs
Tons Revamping has already started and it is likely to be completed by December
2007. In the meantime, the Company has already started grinding facilities at the
plant w.e.f. 19.3.2007.
4.5.COMPANY PRODUCTS
We produce grey cement and white cement. Grey cement produced by us consists of
Ordinary Portland Cement (“OPC”) and Portland Pozzolana Cement (“PPC”). OPC has
three principal grades that are differentiated by their compressive strengths, and consists
of 53-grade, 43-grade and 33-grade OPC.
All our products comply with the quality standards specified by the Bureau of Indian
Standards (“BIS”). Our cement products are marketed under the brand names J.K.
Cement and Sarvashaktimaan for OPC products, J.K. Super for PPC products and J.K.
White and Camel for white cement products, which we believe are well known brands in
their respective markets.
Types of Cement
GREY CEMENT:
SPECIFICATION GREY CEMENT
RAW MATERIAL LIMESTONE & GYPSUM
TRADE NAME SARVASHAKTIMAAN
TRADE MARK VIJAYSTAMBH
PRODUCTS GRADES 43, 53, PPC
PACKAGING CAPACITIES 50 Kg per bag
During the year under report, the production of Grey cement at Nimbahera and Mangrol
plants were higher at 3.64 million tons compared to 3.51 million tons in the previous
year. Sales volume also increased in tandum with production. Higher realizations during
the current year coupled with increase in production of blended cement resulted in
substantially higher profits after setting of price increase of various inputs.
INFORMATION REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 217(1)(e) OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956
A. CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
(a) Energy conservation measures taken:
* Installation of Cement Mill 5 to increase production of Cement Mill 4 along with close
circuiting.
* Installation of Cement Mill 6 to increase production of Cement Mill 3 along with close
circuiting
Grey Cement White Cement J.K. Wall Putty
* Enlargement of down comer duct of PH 2 to save power.
* Replacement of Cement Mill 4 separator
* Feeding of fly ash at outlet of Cement Mill 3 from fly ash silo
* Close circuiting of 1 & 2 Cement Mills.
* ESP up gradation work at Kiln 4
* Additional Elevator for Cement Mill No.8
* Dust & Spillage Control System
* Installation of 13.0 MW waste heat recovery power plant.
* Installation of 20 MW Pet coke based captive power plant.
* Installation of 10 MW Turbine at Bamania to replace existing 7.5 MW Turbine.
* Installation of control & automation system at Kiln -3.
B. TECHNOLOGY ABSORPTION (i) Research & Development, specific area in which R & D has been carried out.
* Increase in fly ash in PPC production
(ii) Benefits Derived as a result of above R & D
* Fly ash addition has been increased from 18.44% to 24.08% at NBH and from 17.72%
to 21.56% at Mangrol
* Reduction in cost
* Cleaner Environment
* Smooth & continuous running of Kiln & raw mill
(iii) Future Action Plan
* Size reduction of clinker granule and limestone
* Mechanical transport system for Kiln 1&2 CM 3&4
(iv) Expenditure on R & D
The Research & Development activities are carried out by our own team under
the advice and consultancy of foreign consultant. Apart from regular expenditure
on research activities debited to profit & loss account under different heads, the
company has paid contribution of Rs. 29 lacs to Research institutes for carrying
out research and development work related to Company's products.
(v) Efforts in brief, made towards Technology Absorption, Adaptation and
innovation.
* Daily monitoring of power consumption
* Preventive monitoring of all critical equipments.
WHITE CEMENT:
The production of white cement at 248880 M.T. during the year under review
against 226729 M.T. in 2005-06 recorded growth of 9.77%. This was mainly on
account of robust growth of around 65% recorded in export volumes (37294 tons
vs. 22472 tons). The growth in domestic market (including Nepal) was 3.59%.
Increased market of value added products mainly wall putty also contributed to
UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
Introduction
3.1 The objective of this review the extent to which employee engagement varies between the public and private sectors. This was examined on two levels:
Are there any fundamental differences in how employee engagement operates between the public and private sectors that would impact on interpretative models? In particular, do the drivers of employee engagement vary between the two sectors? And
What evidence, if any, is there on the effectiveness of employee engagement between the public and private sectors? Are there any marked differences between the sectors in terms of how engaged staff are?
Variations in employee engagement process
3.2 From our analysis of the models presented the differences between the public and private sectors have no impact whatsoever on how employee engagement works. This reflects the fact that the positive factors impacting on employee engagement apply with equal weight to the public and private sectors. In particular this includes:
The importance of providing high quality management, especially at supervisory and immediate line management level
The importance of having a strong organisational vision and clarity in goals that are clearly articulated and communicated to staff at all levels
The importance of engaging in effective two-way communication between the organisation and its staff
3.3 No interpretative model of the employee engagement process assessed as part of the literature review has drawn any sectoral distinction: they are generic across all organisational types in the public and private sectors. This is a key finding of the literature review.
3.4 However, the employee engagement outcomes do vary according to a range of factors reflecting organisational and employee characteristics. The aspiration to find a 'one size fits all' model does not apply, either to all individual employees or to all organisations. These variations are discussed below.
Variations in employee engagement outcomes
3.5 There is a surprisingly limited amount of research commenting on variances in employee engagement between the public and private sectors. This may relate to the fact that there is more in common between the sectors than there is variation and the principles of engagement tend to be generic across both sectors. The literature reviewed tends to highlight the relatively strong performance of the public sector in terms of job
specific parameters ( i.e. public sector workers are more likely to receive compensation for working extra hours, and find their work more worthwhile and personally meaningful) but its weaker performance in the critical employee engagement drivers such as strategic vision and management. For example, CIPD (2006c) in a national survey of 2,000 UK employees found the following:
Hours worked - there are no differences between the public and private sectors in terms of hours worked. However, public sector workers are more likely to receive some compensation for working extra hours than those in the private sector;
Work-life balance - one would have expected that public sector workers would be receiving more help from their employer to achieve a good work-life balance, but actually there is no difference;
Employer negatives - public sector employees are more negative about their employers than their private sector counterparts, reporting that:
o They experience more bullying and harassment than those in the private sector
o They are less satisfied with the opportunities they have to use their abilities
o They are more stressed and under more pressure o They are more critical of their organisation o They are less likely to feel their senior managers have a clear vision for
the organisation o They have less trust and confidence in their senior managers; and o They are also less likely to believe organisational communication.
Job positives - however, the public sector ethos is reflected in the fact that more public sector workers find their work worthwhile and personally meaningful. This is an important finding, that Penna (2007) presents a model whereby 'meaning at work' is at the apex of the model, and one of the most important factors in driving engagement.
Individual/employee performance outcomes - public sector workers rate their own performance lower than private sector employees and are more likely to have taken more sick leave in the last year.
3.6 Ipsos MORI (2006) has highlighted the need for public sector organisations to improve the way in which they manage change and develop leadership capability. It is discussed later how engagement can help organisations manage change (see the Cambridgeshire County Council case study which highlights how engagement was brought in to assist a large and difficult change in the Council). Drawing upon research data from over 200 of the UK's leading organisations, an analysis by sector shows that in many areas there is typically little difference in employee attitudes. However, in core aspects of working life (ref. 'job positives' above), public sector staff tend to be happier with:
Job security Being paid fairly and their pay reflecting level of performance Training and development opportunities
The feedback they receive from line managers Working hours.
3.7 As a result of the research, Ipsos MORI (2006) conclude that public sector employees are more likely to feel that the work they do is interesting and, in general, perceive a greater feeling of morale where they work.
3.8 In contrast, the public sector usually trails the private sector in two key areas: change management and leadership capability (this is despite the fact that public sector employees report a greater level of contact with senior management). The Ipsos MORI (2006) research found that whilst around three-quarters of employees in both sectors understand the need for change, there is a large disparity in terms of those who support the need for change - with 75 per cent of employees in the private sector supporting the need for change, compared to 65 per cent in the public sector. Moreover, public sector employees are significantly more likely to feel that some of the changes being implemented are unnecessary: they believe that " there is too much change for change's sake". Thus it is imperative that managers fully engage staff in understanding the rationale for change, rather than just communicating the change to them, and support employees through the change process.
3.9 In terms of the more practical aspects of change management, again public sector employees are more critical. A quarter of private sector employees, compared to just 15 per cent of public sector employees, believe that change is well managed in their organisation: see Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Perceptions of Change Management by Sector
Source: Ipsos MORI (2006)
3.10 The Ipsos MORI (2006) research highlights other areas in which public sector staff are usually more critical than their private sector counterparts:
Receiving recognition for good performance and providing opportunities for employees to let the organisation know how they feel about things that affect them in their work
Having adequate /sufficient facilities or resources to do their work effectively The belief that their organisation puts customers first Confidence that they are working for a successful organisation.
3.11 As a consequence, the public sector tends to trail the private sector in core areas that can lead to enhanced employee engagement, such as clarity of direction, effective communication and management. The conclusion of this research is that the public sector needs to concentrate more on how it manages change and develops leadership capability, to contribute to delivering the Public Sector Reform Agenda effectively.
3.12 These findings in the UK are supported by research in Canada conducted by the Auditor General of British Columbia (Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia, April 2002). The British Columbia public service received an engagement rating of 59 per cent compared to 79 per cent for the top 50 companies to work for in Canada (Hewitt Associates: The 50 Best Companies to Work for in Canada, as cited in Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia 2002). In comparison to the leading private sector companies, British Columbia's public service employees are relatively happy with their work, are just as committed to staying with their employer, but due to a climate of distrust, a lack of confidence in their managers, and a feeling that the public hold a negative view of them as workers, they are not as proud of where they work. Only 43 per cent would highly recommend their department to a friend seeking employment, compared to 86 per cent in the comparison group. Again the public sector compares favourably in job content, but is weak in terms of organisational identity and advocacy amongst staff.
Summary and key findings
No interpretative model of the employee engagement process that has been reviewed has drawn any sectoral distinction: they are generic across the public and private sectors.
However, the employee engagement outcomes do vary according to a range of factors reflecting organisational and employee characteristics. The aspiration to find a 'one size fits all' model does not apply.
In general, public sector employees are more satisfied with their job characteristics, but are significantly less satisfied with key drivers of employee engagement compared to the private sector.
These weaknesses include lack of orientation to organisational objectives and lack of advocacy.
However, variations in employee engagement within sectors are far more significant and important than any reported variations between the public and
private sectors. The challenge is for employers to understand the importance of employee engagement within their own organisation and to address it effectively.
INTERPRETATIVE MODELS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
Introduction
4.1 This chapter looks at the models of engagement as found throughout the literature. An employer's point of view, engagement is often about employees 'going the extra mile' or exerting 'discretionary effort'. It was also discussed that many of the factors that drive engagement are under the control of the organisation. However, employees will place different emphasis on the extent to which they value each of these factors in exchange for their discretionary effort. This chapter therefore examines the models of engagement in the literature to determine what the key drivers of engagement are, and the extent to which employees value these, and what employees find connects them to the organisation, motivates them to perform above and beyond expectations and compels them to actively promote the interests and objectives of the organisation.
4.2 Although the organisation has primary responsibility for leading engagement, there are also secondary employee and job specific factors which can affect levels of engagement. These are also discussed in this chapter to provide a more comprehensive picture of the factors that determine engagement. The findings are presented under the following headings:
Modelling Engagement - a series of the most relevant interpretative engagement models are presented.
Role of Engagement in Organisational Outcomes - this section illustrates the mechanisms through which engagement can impact on organisational outcomes.
Organisational Variations - an analysis of the extent to which engagement varies between organisations.
Employee Variations - an analysis of the extent to which engagement varies between employees.
Modelling engagement
4.3 As highlighted by CIPD (2007a) there is no definitive all-purpose list of engagement drivers. There are many individual and organisational factors that determine whether employees become engaged, and to what extent they become engaged. This section highlights the models that illustrate these factors and the importance that employees place on them in becoming engaged.
4.4 The approach to employee engagement, discussed by Robinson et al (2004), stresses the importance of 'feeling valued and involved' as a key driver of engagement. Within this umbrella of feeling valued and involved there are a number of elements that have a varying influence on the extent to which the employee will feel valued and involved and hence engaged. Figure 4.1, which is based on a diagnostic model in Robinson et al
(2004), illustrates the drivers of engagement suggested through a survey of over 10,000 NHS employees. Robinson et al (2004) state that this can be a useful pointer to organisations towards those aspects of working life that require serious attention if engagement levels are to be maintained or improved.
Figure 4.1 Robinson et al (2004) model of the drivers of employee engagement
Source: Robinson et al (2004)
4.5 Although tested within the NHS, the authors suggest that many of the drivers of engagement will be common to all organisations, regardless of sector. However as is discussed later in this chapter, engagement levels can vary according to demographic and job related factors. What is noted from the model above is that some of these factors are what would be fundamental or contractual requirements for the organisation (the 'hygiene' factors), such as pay and benefits and health and safety, whereas others are the areas where the organisation must 'go the extra mile' to ensure effective communication, management and cooperation.
4.6 Penna (2007) presents a hierarchical model of engagement factors (see figure 4.2), which illustrates the impact each level will have on the attraction, engagement and retention of talent. They propose a model with "meaning at work" at the apex, which they maintain is borne out by the research carried out into meaning at work. In this context, Penna (2007) defines meaning at work as the situation where a job brings fulfilment for the employee, through the employee being valued, appreciated, having a sense of belonging and congruence with the organisation and feel like they are making a contribution. In this model, as the hierarchy ascends and the organisation successfully meets each of these engagement factors, the organisation becomes more attractive to new potential employees and becomes more engaging to its existing staff.
Figure 4.2 Penna (2007) model of hierarchy of engagement
Source: Penna (2007)
4.7 Interestingly in this model the 'hygiene' factors appear at the foundation of the model, indicating the nature of these factors as a necessary, but not sufficient, building block upon which the organisation must further develop in order to engage staff.
4.8 Work by Schmidt (2004) (see figure 4.3) frames engagement within the context of organisational health and Workplace Well-Being 4 ( WWB). Engagement is defined by Schmidt (2004) as the overarching label that brings employee satisfaction and commitment together. This model highlights the importance of commitment to the job as driven by job satisfaction, and also notes the importance of the supportive organisation. By creating the right conditions to generate high levels of employee engagement, the organisation can drive high performance - with high performance being defined as the achievement of the overarching public sector goal of advancing the public good. The model depicts the flow of organisational dynamics that begins with recruitment and moves through support for work, to workplace well-being, to engagement and finally to high levels of organisational performance.
Figure 4.3 Schmidt (2004) model of organisational dynamics in the public sector
Source: Schmidt (2004)
4.9 This model implies that the foundations of engagement lie in policies to recruit and retain the right workforce ( i.e. in terms of employing specific competences, knowledge and experiences required for success as well as diversity) and to promote health, safety, and well-being. Schmidt (2004) bases the model on a variety of studies and writings, implicit in which is the notion that it is WWB that drives engagement. CIPD (2007a) concurs with this view of the importance of well being, stating that engagement is 'wholly consistent' with an emphasis on employee well-being.
4.10 In Schmidt's (2004) discussion, WWB itself is driven by commitment and job satisfaction, which in turn are determined by a number of factors. It is a similar idea to the model presented by Robinson et al (2004) where 'feeling valued and involved' was the key driver of engagement, but in turn was influenced to a varying degree by a range of factors. As is the case throughout much of the literature, Schmidt (2004) does not present a definitive list of the drivers of commitment and satisfaction (as the drivers of engagement) but reviews several studies and reports. Concentrating here on the studies
presented by Schmidt (2004) that appear to be based on a more robust approach ( e.g. regression analysis as opposed to theorising) the following results are of interest:
4.11 WorkUSA (2000) - This survey used regression analysis to identify the key factors affecting employee commitment:
Trust in senior leadership Chance to use skills Competitiveness of rewards Job security Quality of company's products and services Absence of workplace stress Honesty and integrity of company's business conduct
4.12 ERIN Research - The Region of Peel (a large municipality in Ontario, Canada) carried out an employee survey in 2002. Schmidt (2004) advocates the robustness of the results, from the Canadian public sector, due to the use of 'advanced statistical techniques' and 'excellent' return rates on the survey of 72%. The survey identified job satisfaction and commitment as the drivers for the engagement model, with the following factors found to be important to each:
Job satisfaction:
A career path that offers opportunities for advancement; Fair pay and benefits; The perception that the municipality offers good value to customers; A satisfactory work environment, as defined by:
o A reasonable workload; o Good relations with immediate supervisor; o Smoothly functioning organisational dynamics; o Good relationships with colleagues; and o Effective internal communication.
Commitment:
Job satisfaction; A career path that offers opportunities for advancement; A positive perception of senior management; and The perception that the municipality offers good value to customers.
4.13 The analysis of the survey found a correlation between satisfaction and commitment of 0.57 suggesting that the two concepts are related but deserve separate analysis. Further, what also emerges from these results is that satisfaction is a driver of commitment, but not vice versa, as commitment does not appear as a key factor in the analysis of what drives satisfaction.
Management and communication
4.14 The importance of good management and effective communication has been highlighted as key vehicles through which employee engagement can be implemented. As Robinson et al (2004) highlight, organisations must work to engage employees and establish a two-way relationship between the employer and employee. Michelman (2004) notes that the defining contribution of great managers is that they boost the engagement levels of the people who work for them. Michelman (2004) suggests that they achieve this through concentrating on four core areas of managing people:
Selection; Expectation setting; Motivation; and Development
4.15 Michelman (2004) points out that in leading engagement, great managers will seek the right fit for a person's talent, they work to see that employees are rewarded for their performance and they endeavour to ensure that talent is developed through progressively more challenging and meaningful assignments.
4.16 A research report into employee engagement by Melcrum Publishing (2005) based on a global survey of over 1,000 multinationals concluded that from an organisation's point of view it is the senior executives that 'set the tone' of engagement in an organisation, whatever the size. There are a number of actions and strategies that senior management can make use of to inspire engagement among employees and motivate them to go the extra mile. The six top drivers of engagement from the senior management perspective were found to be:
Communicating a clear vision of the future Building trust in the organisation Involving employees in decision making that will affect them Demonstrating commitment to the organisation's values Being seen to respond to feedback Demonstrating genuine commitment to employee's well being
4.17 The same Melcrum Publishing (2005) report also examined the role of line managers in encouraging engagement. In this regard, the survey results imply that 'creating a climate of open communication' is the single most important action for line managers in affecting levels of employee engagement, with 60% of those surveyed claiming it is the most important element.
4.18 Regarding the importance of communication, Moorcroft (2006) discusses the restructuring that took place at the Royal Bank of Canada ( RBC) in 2004. It was noted at that time that there was a need to engage rather than inform employees and thus better align their performance with the organisation's vision and business goals. Formerly, communication strategies had focused on informing employees and creating awareness.
However a new strategy was designed by the company in order to engage employees (and thus generate desired behaviours) that would help create outcomes (measurable effects) in support of the organisation's objectives.
4.19 The strategy has four key objectives:
i) Help employees develop a better understanding of how what they do relates to the organisation's vision, strategies and goals;
ii) Create a more dynamic and interactive communication environment that involves employees in thinking about and understanding how they can influence business results;
iii) Ensure employees are getting the information they need to help frame and guide their day-to-day decisions; and
iv) Promote and recognise the desired behaviours and outcomes in communication.
4.20 This strategy is illustrated by RBC in the following model:
Figure 4.4 RBC's new model of employee communication
Source: Moorcroft (2006)
4.21 Moorcroft (2006) notes that the 'old' model was focused on developing tactics and methods by which to inform employees, or create awareness, of company news and objectives. However, the new model (see figure 4.4 above) is based on engaging employees in the communication process in order to achieve the desired outcomes and thus build the business value. This is achieved by helping employees have a better idea of how what they do impacts upon the organisation and by promoting behaviours that help achieve organisational objectives. Moorcroft (2006) reports that the changes to employee
communications are beginning to show solid results, with employee alignment and engagement scores improving. Interestingly, the communication budget has actually been reduced at the same time, illustrating that a more focused and thought through strategy can result in better value for money.
The role of engagement in organisational outcomes
4.22 This section discusses the models that illustrate the place of engagement in the wider operations of the organisation and the mechanisms through which engagement can impact on the wider context.
4.23 The elements of various models that illustrate the nature in which engagement can have an impact upon the organisation. Heintzman and Marson (2006) use the private sector service-profit chain model as a basis for producing a public sector equivalent (see figure 4.5). They base the model on research carried out in Canada on what the top public sector challenges are, namely;
Human resource modernisation; Service improvement; and Improving the public's trust in public institutions.
4.24 Heintzman and Marson (2006) point out that the private sector has, for over a decade, documented the links between employee engagement and client satisfaction, and between client satisfaction and bottom line financial results. The authors note that the third element (the bottom line) cannot be transferred directly to the public sector but based on research on the link between public service outcomes and the public's rating of overall government performance, they suggest the following public service value chain:
Figure 4.5: Heintzman and Marson's (2006) public sector value chain
Source: Heintzman and Marson (2006)
4.25 Whilst Heintzman and Marson (2006) state that work is still underway to document the drivers of employee engagement with respect to this model they state that possible candidates (based on secondary research quoted within the paper) are:
Support for the goals and mandate of the organisation; Effective leadership and management; Supportive colleagues and work unit;
Tools, authority and independence to do the job; Career progress and development; and Workload.
4.26 Heintzman and Marson (2006) cite emerging Canadian evidence that supports this concept. They suggest that by understanding the drivers of engagement and the link between engagement and performance of the institution, this tool can be used across public sector management to make significant improvements in employees' work and in the overall performance and perception of the public sector.
4.27 A model produced by the CIPD (2006c) and presented in the organisation's Employee Attitudes and Engagement Survey' of 2006, brings various elements of employee engagement together in one overarching model (see figure 4.6). This then formed the basis of the survey, which was carried out across the private and public sectors.
4.28 The model, which illustrates the linkages and important factors in each of these elements, is provided below, with arrows indicating directions of influence:
Figure 4.6: The CIPD (2006c) model of employee engagement model
Source: CIPD (2006c)
4.29 Individual factors are those such as gender, age, ethnicity and disability (discussed in more detail later in this chapter). Working life describes factors such as occupation, hours of work and pay, as well as important issues such as bullying or workplace harassment.
4.30 Management, leadership and communication refers to how employees view their managers and leaders, how much opportunity they have to participate in organisational decision making and levels of trust. As CIPD (2006c) highlights, these factors have been found in research to be very important in determining levels of engagement. This is also the area where managers can have an important influence.
4.31 Attitudes to work refers to employees' perceptions of their jobs and includes levels of well-being, satisfaction, enthusiasm, commitment and loyalty. It is important to note here the two-way interaction in this model between attitudes to work and engagement. Whilst satisfaction, commitment, stress and loyalty factors feed into levels of engagement, it follows from the model that organisations that successfully engage their employees will engender greater levels of job satisfaction and loyalty, for example.
4.32 The engagement box itself refers to the CIPD's (2006c) three types of engagement (as discussed in section 2.21 above) - cognitive, emotional and physical. Finally, in the model above, engagement and attitudes to work lead to outcomes for the organisation, in terms of individual performance, intent to quit and absence levels. The model was used by CIPD in their annual attitude and engagement survey, with the finding that there is in fact a lot that managers and leaders can do to drive up engagement. Levels of trust and confidence in senior management and line managers were found to be 'disappointingly low' in the survey, however CIPD (2006c) cites this as an opportunity for managers to evaluate how their own organisation compares with the national sample and to consider how best to harness the engagement levels of their own workforce.
Power of employee Engagement:-
By now, many of us have heard the buzz on employee engagement – so much so that the buzzword is loosing its value. Talent management and employee engagement, just like other buzzwords and business fads, really do have value – if we understand their true meaning and don’t let them get diluted with misconceptions.
Engagement goes beyond the good employee or the good company citizen. Employee engagement is the extent to which employees put discretionary effort into their work, in the form of extra time, energy and brainpower.
Think about it… When companies are often trying to improve performance with fewer people and decreasing resources due to cutbacks and financial pressures, discretionary effort is the grail managers are seeking. Employees who freely give that extra effort are of tremendous value.
General studies show that a 5% increase in employee engagement results in a 2.5% increase in growth. Growth measured by company value, which in the public sector is measured by stock value.
The relationship between employee engagement, high performance, and company growth is compelling to say the least. Unfortunately, national surveys of company managers show an overall dissatisfaction with employee engagement levels and measures of employee engagement show a very distressing picture...
The Three Levels of Employee Engagement
Highly Engaged employees are builders. They want to know the desired expectations for their role so they can meet and exceed them. They're naturally curious about their company and their place in it. They perform at consistently high levels. They want to use their talents and strengths at work every day. They work with passion, and they have a visceral connection to their company. And they drive innovation and move their organization forward.
Moderately Engaged to Not Engaged employees are the largest group. Those that put their time in and take a wait-and-see attitude towards their job, co-workers, and employer. They aren’t a negative force at work but neither are they a positive force.
Actively Disengaged employees are those fundamentally disconnected from their jobs. The actively disengaged counter the productivity of engaged and highly engaged employees. They miss an average of 3.5 days more than other employees and cost the U.S. economy between $292 billion and $355 billion per year.
For most businesses, only 14% of their employees are highly engaged and upwards of 24% are actively disengaged.
(I’ve seen these numbers vary – from a low “highly engaged” number of 5% to a high of 17%, and a low “actively disengaged” number of 19%.)
The Cost of Low Employee Engagement
So what is the cost? Let’s assume...
A business has a payroll of ten million dollars. Highly engaged employees are 90% productive (probably higher). Moderately engaged and not engaged employees average out at 70%
productivity. Actively disengaged employees are 50% productive (probably lower).
And we’ll adjust the breakdown to more favorable numbers (and easier math)…
15% are highly engaged employees and are 90% productive.
.15 * .90 * 100 = 13.5% productivity.
65% are moderately engaged employees and are 70% productive.
.65 * .70 * 100 = 45.5% productivity.
20% are actively disengaged employees and are 50% productive.
However, it gets worse. The 19% to 24% of actively disengaged employees not only give a comparatively low level of effort, they undermine the efforts of others thus decreasing the effective productivity of the entire staff. Furthermore, if these employees are in customer-facing roles, they can cost the company current and new business.
The really scary part is that national averages show the number of actively disengaged employees going up - from a low of 16% in the mid 90’s to a high of up to 24% today.
What Can We Do To Increase Engagement?
The most critical element to employee engagement is the front-line manager.
Managers need to discover and develop employees' talents if they want to keep them engaged.
Employees must have a strong relationship with, and clear communication from, their manager.
Managers have to challenge employees within their areas of talent, and then help them gain the skills and knowledge they need to build their talents into strengths.
Managers should help employees develop ownership of their goals, targets, and milestones, so employees can enhance their contributions to the company and increase their impact.
In this article I discussed what employee engagement is, the cost and consequences of low levels of engagement, and touched on what managers need to do. Next time, we’ll delve into more detail about what managers and leaders must
do to measure and increase engagement levels and thus productivity and company growth.
In the last article on employee engagement, we talked about what engagement is, the relationship between employee engagement, high performance, and company growth, and the cost of low employee engagement levels.
In this article, I want to focus on what a manager can and needs to do to raise levels of engagement. But first, let's build a little on the definition of Employee Engagement ...
We stated in the last article that employee engagement is "the extent to which employees put discretionary effort into their work, in the form of extra time, energy and brainpower". A good definition to be sure but there's more to it than that.
Employee engagement can be broken down into two areas - the first being emotional and the second, rational. Within these we can define 9 core statements that characterize engagement.
The 9 Core Statements of Engaged Employees
Emotional
1. I would recommend my company to a friend as a good place to work. 2. My company inspires me to do my best work. 3. I am proud to tell others I work for my company. 4. My job provides me with a sense of personal accomplishment. 5. I really care about the future of my company.
Rational
1. I understand how my unit contributes to the success of my company. 2. I understand how my role is related to my company's overall goals,
objectives, and direction. 3. I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally
expected to help my company succeed. 4. I am personally motivated to help my company be successful.
Obviously, an employee who would make these statements is highly engaged, but our topic today is how to increase the level of engagement in those employees who would not make these statements.
Managers Make The Difference
As was concluded in part 1, the most critical element to employee engagement is the front-line manager.
1. Managers need to discover and develop employees' talents if they want to keep them engaged.
2. Employees must have a strong relationship with, and clear communication from, their manager.
3. Managers have to challenge employees within their areas of talent, and then help them gain the skills and knowledge they need to build their talents into strengths.
4. Managers should help employees develop ownership of their goals, targets, and milestones, so employees can enhance their contributions to the company and increase their impact.
But saying it doesn't get it done. Managers need to know how to do these things and, sad to say, most MBA programs don't teach it.
Additionally, managers cannot do it alone. The organization must adopt a "talent management" culture in order to make engagement initiatives successful.
That being said, let's look at a few critical fundamentals that will lead to positive results.
Four Fundamental Actions Leading to Positive Results
1. Clarify Expectations
Create Goal Statements that formalize the following:
What is to be accomplished Who will be involved When the activity will be completed How much it costs and which resources will be used
Evaluate work against measurable standards
-Positive Results will most likely include:
For the employee - Less frustration and stress - clear direction Higher level of motivation and satisfaction
A common or shared language More effective communication with manager
For the manager - More effective communication with team member More focused and productive team member Higher productivity and accomplishment of business goals A common or shared language
2. Don't Leave Employees Out Of The Plan
Even the best plan can fail if the employees are not committed to itGet CommitmentGet Accountability
-Positive Results will most likely include:
For the employee - Higher level of motivation and engagement Ownership to the process and to their own development Commitment and accountability to the plan
For the manager - A better performance plan overall - dual input Higher level of commitment and accountability from team members Streamlines work processes, saves time and money
3. Meet On An On-Going Basis To Share Feedback
Increase effectiveness of communicationIncrease competence and confidenceIncrease productivity and accuracyEncourage a higher standard
-Positive Results will most likely include:
For the employee - Recognized for what they are doing well Learn if "off course", receive guidance, and improve performance Clearer sense of what's expected if goals change Less frustration and stress due to more timely feedback and input
For the manager - Time and opportunity to provide critical feedback Learn valuable information and gain insights Increased commitment, quality standards and productivity levels More insight into potential talent and development opportunities Increased quality of communication Increased levels of credibility and trust w/ team members
4. Providing Factual / Behavior-Specific Feedback
Give specifics and facts of performanceBe clear about what changes are neededProvide objective guidance and directionFocus on behavior vs. attitudes or personal characteristicsSolve problems and move forward
-Positive Results will most likely include:
For the employee - Commitment and accountability to changing their behavior Feels treatment is fair, professional Information provided is tangible, practical and actionable
For the manager - Clarifies performance outcomes Cultivates a more healthy environment Increases levels of credibility and trust w/ team members Focused team members, leading to:
o More timely results o More accurate results o More productive teams
Essential Reading
A road map for employee engagementNow that we have identified the key drivers of employee engagement, how can we start to create – and implement - a road map for achieving outstanding organisational performance?
Attitude and engagement creates turbulence in corporate AmericaCorporate America is not aligned with the needs and requirements of its increasingly diverse workforce and radical changes in attitudes mean that a
growing number of young Americans are dissatisfied, disengaged and unproductive.
A is for ApathyA quick search on Amazon reveals not one single business book or pamphlet about overcoming apathy. And yet anyone who been a manager for more than a week must surely recognise that proving that effort is worthwhile is the real essence of leadership.
Employee disengagement a global epidemicAt a time when companies are relying on their workforces to achieve growth, a major new survey has found that only one in seven employees worldwide are fully engaged with their jobs and willing to go the extra mile for their companies.
Employee engagement: What exactly is it?The notion of employee engagement is causing a big buzz in management circles at the moment. It's a topic that employers and employees alike think they understand, yet often can't articulate very easily. So what exactly is it?
Employee engagement: the what, why and howEmployee engagement is the new Holy Grail for organisations worldwide. But what exactly does it mean? Why is it so important? And if you haven't got enough of it, how can you get some more?
The keys to employee engagementKeeping your employees engaged really isn't rocket science - it's just a metter of listening, learning and leading by example.
Managers critical to employee engagementManagers' behaviour has a huge impact on the work climate and is a critical component in employee engagement and motivation. Yet too many reward programmes simply focus on money and ignore this human factor.
More managers and leaders ask me "how to engage" and, "how to innovate" than any other question. As well they might, given that so many of us have to disengage just to survive their endless ill-conceived meetings, badly-laid plans, and the waste, day by day, minute by minute, of our lives.
Latest on Employee Engagement:-
Recession promps a rat race re-evaluationIn tough times, many organisations slip into treating people badly. But with half of workers considering down-shifting to a more fulfilling job, poor employers could find their offices rapidly emptying when things pick up.
Conflict can be a force for goodNever mind about emotional intelligence, empathy or consensual leadership, what really drives workplaces is passion, ambition and even conflict.
Are people really your most important asset?Many companies proclaim that their employees are their greatest asset. Unfortunately, the phrase has become somewhat cliché, similar to saying employees are "empowered." These are valid statements only if companies put actions behind their claims.
A little respectWhatever our age, it seems Aretha Franklin was right. What most of us want from work is simply to be managed with a little respect.
Fear brings loathing, not harder workIn the current climate it's easy to ignore the career needs and motivations of your workers. But assuming your team will go the extra mile just because they feel lucky still to have a job is a big mistake.
Making sure not everybody hurtsIt's a tough thing to ask when times are so tough, but it is now even more important that senior executives find time to provide encouragement, advice and support for their people.
Cut in haste, repent at leisureBefore cutting jobs, take a deep breath and consider whether this is really the answer to your woes, or whether it simply create even more problems down the line.
I'm a manager, get me out of hereMost managers are a bundle of nerves who would prefer to be back in the ranks rather than leading their teams through the worst recession in a generation.
Time to rethink your jobIs it possible to get staff more engaged and committed just by changing how they think about their work? A new Canadian study has suggested that it is.
Economic crisis drains moraleWith the news full of yet more job losses, it's not surprising that worries about job security are having a significant impact on productivity, engagement and the general working environment.
Demoralised, demotivated, dysfunctionalJust when they thought things couldn't get any worse, many organizations are seeing employee morale plummet as long hours, anxiety and stress tends sends productivity levels through the floor.
A cultural conundrumRobert moved from the UK to a management job in China a year ago. While things went well at first, one of his team has recently been openly challenging his working-style and being dismissive of his decisions. What should he do?
Looking after talent is vital in a downturnIn the current climate, you might have thought that organisations would focus on containing costs and managing employees out of the door. In fact the opposite is the case.
US workers left cold by their leadersNearly half of American workers rate their immediate supervisor more highly than their boss, viewing their senior executives as uninspiring, demotivating and stuck in their ivory towers.
Positive thinking: does it really get results?The idea that positive thinking can affect our lives for the better has been gaining momentum over the past 80 years, and even more so recently. So does the concept work? I dare say it does - within reason.
Generation Y the least engagedThe knives are out again for Generation Y as a new survey finds that in almost all parts of the world, employees born since 1980 are the least engaged members of the workplace.
Five simple keys to building solid teamsWhen I ask teams what they would like from their supervisors, the same simple things keep coming up. You might think they're obvious - but if they are, teams wouldn't continually be mentioning them!
The rise and rise of the four-day weekA four-day work week might seem like a radical way to cut energy consumption, but it is gaining acceptance among state governments across the U.S. and looks set to spread further still.
Get rid of managers and we'll all be happierIt's not the lack of money, the daily commute or even the mindlessness of what they are doing that makes workers feel most unhappy. It is - you guessed it - their managers.
Pare back perks at your perilIn a downturn cutting back on benefits may seem like a win/win decision. But according U.S business school Wharton, firms that take an axe to their perks may soon live to regret it as it.
Green credentials can boost employee loyaltyWith rising fuel prices hitting workers' wallets, an employer's green credentials are becoming an increasingly important retention tool as well as something nice to have from a brand perspective.
What are you doing to increase trust?Without trust, there's no passion or desire for excellence. Employees stop contributing, valuable new ideas are never brought the table and bad ideas are never challenged. An organization suffering from these conditions eventually becomes incapable of correcting its own mistakes.
Managers fail to live up to expectationsSeven out of 10 employees still trust their bosses highly, despite the fact that the vast majority of managers generally fail to live up to their expectations and aspirations.
Meetings and emails take the happiness out of workIt's official. Endless meetings and the constant deluge of emails really do drain most of us of the will to live, let alone work effectively.
Is your work an obligation or an opportunity?People tend to see work either as an obligation, overbearing, or an opportunity. And if you want to take the opportunity to rise above the mundane and "make a difference", try thinking like an entrepreneur.
Bitter workers feel ignored and overlookedThe modern workplace is a hot-bed of simmering resentment, with workers feeling ignored and overlooked and preferring to communicate by email rather than actually speaking to each other.
Americans bitter as the dream turns sourHalf of US workers believe that the American dream of a nice home, financial security for you and your family and hope for the future is now unattainable.
Are you dead on the job?Here's a challenge for you. Find someone doing something good today and tell them what a good job they're doing. Because praise is the thing that motivates us the most, even though it takes so little time and costs nothing.
Avenues for employee complaints seem to be closedA prime reason for employee unhappiness is that companies do not adhere to a set of standards. Some are too forgiving of employee misconduct, while others are managed by people who themselves overstep boundaries and could care less about rules.
What makes managers tickInteresting and challenging work is what drives most managers to go the extra mile, not performance-related pay, cash bonuses or a stake in the business.
Stock options aren't enough to keep employees engaged. You need state-of-the-art communications that can drive performance and in an environment that employees want to be every day. Employee engagement leads to employee retention, higher customer productivity, motivated employees and profitability. And we're here to help you achieve those results.
See for yourself. Here's how to get started:
1. Get a free eNewsletter. Sign up for The Engagement Report by completing the form to the right. Written by engagement expert Linda Dulye, The Engagement Report will bring you the latest news and information on successful engagement programs around the world.
2. Brush up on your skills. View Ragan's calendar of upcoming events to choose the conference, workshop or teleseminar on employee engagement that's right for you.
3. Listen to a multimedia CD. Hear a CD recording of our teleseminar on employee engagement: The new rules of engagement for executive messaging. Or choose another multimedia CD on how to improve employee retention and increase employee productivity.
4. Start talking. Jump into the conversation about employee engagement on Ragan's message boards.
5. Take a peek at our archives. Read about employee engagement, employee productivity and employee retention in these informative articles:
Rules of employee engagement Motivating employees? Companies are getting a whole lot better at it
Employee engagement: It's not about communications, stupid After two days of talking about employee engagement, one thing became abundantly clear: It's really hard to do, and very few people are doing it well
Get Engaged: Why companies are paying close attention to employee engagement and what it means to you
Does engagement work? A new book tackles what drives employee productivity and employee retention
1.) Merit board links employee engagement and productivity
By Brittany R. Ballenstedt [email protected] November 18, 2008 Employees who are fully engaged tend to work in offices that achieve better program results, call in sick less often and stay with their agencies longer, according to a new report by the Merit Systems Protection Board.The report, which is based on results from a 2005 survey of nearly 37,000 employees at 24 federal agencies, found that despite dwindling resources and increased pressure to improve programs, agencies can thrive if managers connect with their employees."Federal supervisors and managers have an important role to play in engaging employees," said MSPB Chairman Neil McPhie. "Those who are successful in engendering these attitudes will lead a more engaged workforce that will produce better outcomes for their agencies."The survey found that about one-third of federal workers considered themselves to be fully engaged, while almost one-half are somewhat engaged and 17 percent are not engaged.The report noted a connection between levels of employee involvement and specific outcomes, though the cause and effect were not always clear. Higher levels of employee engagement correlated with higher scores on the results and accountability portion of the Office of Management and Budget's Program Assessment Rating Tool.Additionally, employees at the five agencies with the best engagement levels used an average of nine sick days in 2005, while those at the five agencies with the most apathetic workforces took off an average of 12 sick days. Finally, only 17 percent of the nonretirement eligible employees who reported they were "very likely" to leave their agencies within the next year were engaged, while 36 percent classified themselves as "somewhat engaged" and almost 47 percent put themselves into the "not engaged" category.There were differences in the level of employee job involvement among different groups of federal employees, the report noted. For example, Senior Executive Service members told of higher levels of engagement than supervisors, who, in turn, were more invested in their work than nonsupervisors. Employees with higher salaries and more education also tended to be more engaged, according to the report.Employees at the Air Force, Army, NASA and the State Department reported the highest levels of engagement, while employees at the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Homeland Security Department reported the lowest. MSPB said the nature of an organization's work and its management practices, culture, mission and overall stability were important factors in piquing employees' interest.The board recommended that agencies foster engagement by improving new hire marketing, encouraging networking and rotating employees to different teams or organizations.
Employees also should be shown that they are valued from their first day on the job, MSPB said, and agencies should have mentoring programs to help them define their roles. In addition, supervisors should use the various phases in the performance management process to provide guidance and feedback and to tell employees how their work contributes to the agency's overall mission.Finally, MSPB said, agencies should measure employee engagement periodically and energize the workforce if it is found to be lacking."By establishing a link between employee engagement and agency outcomes, we hope to refocus attention and energy on management practices that can increase the level of employee engagement in federal agencies," McPhie said.
2.) Engagement equals productivity
Johann Tasker 05 October 2004
Employee engagement is a trusted motivational tool, yet only the most high-profile organisations are truly taking it seriously.
If you were to ask people what it means to get engaged, most would probably glaze over and talk about true love, diamonds and wedding cake. Not Bob Arnold, director of strategy and human capital management at HR consultancy, Chiumento.
Arnold is more likely to define engagement as a beneficial two-way relationship where employees and employers 'go the extra mile' for one another. Companies that get it right reap the rewards and so do their employees, he said.
The benefits of having happy staff are well-documented. But the challenge for many organisations is showing that engagement brings a tangible return on investment - a process many companies find elusive.
"Engagement means different things to different people," Arnold said. "There was a risk that it would become just another buzzword, so settling on a definition gave us a lot of debate."
With this in mind, Arnold embarked on a study with Personnel Today to find out what engagement meant to professionals in different organisations. The study, called Get Engaged, measured engagement levels and whether companies felt they were making progress.
The results, drawn from a survey of 400 HR professionals conducted via the Personnel Today website, are surprising. One in four organisations admitted that staff were not engaged. A similar number said the situation had worsened in the
past year. And 44 per cent said that tackling engagement was an overwhelming challenge.
"While many claim to be actively tackling the issue, it is worrying that a significant number don't know where to start," Arnold said. "But if you don't know where you are, it's difficult to know where to go."
Asda topped the list of companies most admired for its abilities to engage staff, followed by Microsoft and Virgin companies. But manufacturing and retailing rank staff engagement lower than any other sector.
"The bigger companies have the money to spend on engagement and publicity," Arnold said. "But I don't decry the PR because it's good that the importance of engagement is highlighted."
Board directors appear to have their heads in the clouds, according to the research, with 69 per cent believing that engagement levels in their organisations had increased in the past 12 months. Only 38 per cent of HR managers agreed with them.
This difference might be because directors rarely come into direct contact with the feelings of employees on the shop floor, instead basing their opinions on the feelings of managers with whom they have regular or day-to-day contact.
A more likely theory might be that directors are overly optimistic because they base their opinions on what they are told. Sometimes, junior managers feed them an overly rosy picture of company life in an attempt to show all is well.
Some obstacles to engagement included lack of time (48 per cent), lack of knowledge (40 per cent) and proving return on investment (40 per cent). But poorly skilled line managers were seen as the biggest barrier, with 50 per cent of HR managers saying it was a problem.
Arnold said such a response was understandable, but he warned that line managers are an easy target. They are, he said, often unfairly blamed and are expected to have a sixth sense when it comes to influencing an organisation's culture.
"Putting in a new manager will change the level of engagement, but it could rise or fall. We should be concentrating on better communication and coaching our managers to do what they do best, while addressing their problem areas."
Measuring the benefits of engagement can be especially hard for some organisations. Better job performance tops the list of benefits, but some firms do not measure engagement at all. Others mistakenly measure levels of absenteeism.
"Measuring engagement by looking at absenteeism levels is like looking in the rear-view mirror while you are driving a car," Arnold said. "It tells you where you've been rather than where you're going."
Other popular measures include staff turnover (67 per cent), staff opinion surveys (60 per cent) and achievement of targets (42 per cent). But, Arnold said, the biggest benefit of engagement is the value added per employee.
High staff turnover rates in the retail sector, for example, mean most employees never stay long enough to get engaged. Similarly, the spectre of job losses means building engagement in a manufacturing company can be a big challenge.
Arnold said despite the efforts of the HR managers, no one will stay engaged in the same job forever. The level of engagement will wax and wane, he said.
A third of respondents said engagement levels were static. And where levels had fallen, just 48 per cent of firms were doing something about it. But part of the problem could be that some engagement programmes are too rigid. "There's no easy quick fix," Arnold said. "It's an ongoing process and if one programme provided the solution then someone would have patented it and be making a fortune by selling it.
"My belief is that engagement cannot be addressed by a mechanistic approach," he said. "Each situation is different and it comes back to the fact that employers and employees must support each other."
3.) Cambridgeshire County Council -
Profile: 18,000 staff & turnover of £550m
Approach: it has had a formal people strategy since 2001 - it is clear about developing the organisation, having a single culture, employee development and creative ways to reward good performance. In 2005 the Institute for Employment Studies ( IES) ran a culture audit out of which the ' Inspire Project' was born - the objective being to change the way people work and communicate. A new framework defining 17 behaviours was rolled out with the assistance of the Hay Group. The project included work on leadership development, with managers - including the Chief Executive - receiving 360-degree appraisals and team-building workshops.
It has also led to a new customer service charter and employee charter. The latter outlines not only what the Council can expect from its employees, but also what they can expect in return - " it is the psychological contract made explicit".
Impact: in HR benchmarks the Council has top quartile performance including absence management, and bottom quartile costs for HR service delivery. HR even sells its best practice to other public-sector organisations to generate revenue. The staff survey results are very strong:
85% of employees thought they were doing a worthwhile job
84% said that managers listened to their ideas
90% felt they had the chance to give feedback during appraisals; and
71% said they had enough opportunities to raise issues of importance
" We are not a traditional authority - we seem to have more ways to get messages out and actively listen to people than you see in most organisations."
" If you don't start with your workforce, how can you reach the public?"
" 18,000 ambassadors are better than 18,000 assassins."
4.) Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council -
Profile: 13,500 staff
Historic Performance: in 2002 the Council was in the 'doldrums', with 1 star and rated as 'weak' in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment. Only 24% of staff rated morale as 'high'.
Approach: Rotherham's 'Exchange Programme' was runner up in the 'Improving Business Performance Through Engaging Staff' category of the CIPD People Management Awards. A representative 'Reach-in' panel that gives detailed feedback and quarterly focus groups to handle hot topics supplemented conventional methods such as staff surveys and an employee suggestion scheme. Through effective promotion the number of employee suggestions increased six fold from 50 per year to 300. " Letting people know the outcomes of their suggestions was the most important part of the process."
The Council's wider mission to motivate and inspire is encapsulated in their HEART approach:
Help each other learn and develop
Empower through open communication Appreciate and respect others Recognise and acknowledge contributions Try new ideas and initiatives.
Impact:
Staff turnover is down from 18% to 9%
Average absence is down from 13.8 days to 9.2 days
Rotherham is now a three star council and rated as 'strongly improving'.
65% of staff responded that they are happy at work.
" Happy employees are more likely to come to work."
"We know staff feel valued, and confident that they are having an input into our success as a council."
"The culture has changed from one that was progressing slowly to one that wants
to achieve, and is achieving results."
5.) CIPD (2006c): Employee variations
The final variable impacting on employee engagement relates to employees themselves. A number of studies have produced quantitative research findings that demonstrate the impact that biographical and job characteristics can have on employee engagement. One of the most in-depth was conducted by the Institute for Employment Studies ( IES) (as analysed by Robinson et al 2004) which analysed attitude survey data for 2003 from 14 organisations in the NHS (>10,000 completed questionnaires). The key findings were:
Biographical characteristics
Gender - the difference in engagement scores between men and women was not significant (although note that some surveys (see CIPD 2006c discussed below) find that females are generally more engaged than males - this difference may be due to the fact that the NHS study surveys across employees within the same organisation, whilst the CIPD survey cuts across a wide variety of industries and organisations).
Ethnicity - minority ethnic employees have higher engagement levels than their White colleagues. Black, Chinese and Asian employees have higher scores than those in Mixed and White groups.
Age - engagement levels go down slightly as employees get older - until they reach the oldest group, 60 and over, where the highest engagement levels of all are displayed. The high level of engagement levels expressed by experienced employees, who may be considered to be approaching the end of their working lives, suggests an untapped source of potential in many organisations.
Work-life balance - those in their 40s and 50s have the highest levels of workplace stress and are likely to find it difficult to balance work and home life. Robinson et al (2004) therefore suggest that attention to family friendly policies could increase the engagement levels for this group.
Caring responsibilities - the need for a family-friendly approach and greater emphasis on work-life balance is further underlined by the fact that employees with caring responsibilities for children have significantly lower engagement levels than those who have no caring responsibilities.
Medical - those with a disability/medical condition have lower engagement levels than those who do not have such a condition.
CIPD (2006c) in their national survey of 2,000 employees across a wide spectrum of public and private sector employers found broadly similar findings to the NHS survey, although several disparities are noted:
Gender - women were found, in general, to be more engaged than men, but they also tend to be doing different kinds of jobs. Women are more satisfied with their work and hold more positive views of their senior management team than do men. They are more loyal to their organisation as an employer and report higher levels of loyalty to their customers and clients than men. This is in contrast to the NHS survey result conducted by IES and analysed by Robinson et al (2004), where it was found that there was no discernable difference between engagement levels between men and women. As discussed above this may be due to the fact that the NHS study surveyed employees across the same organisation whilst CIPD (2006c) cut across a range of different industries and organisations. This may suggest that males and females are responding in a similar fashion to the same NHS environment but that in general differences in male/female engagement may be due to participation in different occupations and industries.
Age - workers aged 55+ are more engaged with their work than younger employees, and they are also happier with their work-life balance, working shorter hours than others. Employees aged under 35 are significantly less engaged with their work than older workers. Again this is contrast to the NHS results where it was found that engagement levels go down as age increases, although both surveys find that workers in the 55+ or 60+ bracket are more engaged.
Disability - employees with a disability are less engaged due to a range of negative factors including: bullying and harassment, not being listened to, the stress of work, a feeling of less control over their work, and higher levels of anxiety.
Managers - they find their work more important and more meaningful than non-managers do. Their responses on communication and involvement are much more
positive than those of non-managers, and managers feel that they have more support and recognition and are listened to more than non-managers are.
Flexible contracts - some surprisingly strong differences were found between those working on a flexible contract ( e.g. flexible hours, term time contracts, homeworking etc.) and other workers. Those on flexible contracts tend to be more emotionally engaged, more satisfied with their work, more likely to speak positively about their organisation and least likely to quit than those not employed on flexible contracts.
However, it is particularly important to point out that demographic variables should not be seen in isolation as predictors of performance or engagement. CIPD (2006c) stresses the following:
"…what we have found is that good management practice and a conducive working environment can lead to high levels of engagement and performance amongst all groups of workers."
CIPD (2006c) also note the following regarding job characteristics:
Job group - the nature of the job makes a big difference to engagement levels. In general, managers and professionals have higher levels of engagement than do their colleagues in supporting roles.
Working pattern/hours - full-timers are significantly more engaged than part-timers, while employees who work days are more engaged than their colleagues on shifts or on a rota. This suggests that employers need to work harder with people who are not necessarily at work during 'standard' working times - to ensure that they receive communications, are managed effectively and have opportunities to grow and develop in their jobs.
Length of service - engagement levels go down as length of service increases - an indication to employers that they need to ensure that longer-serving employees continue to be exposed to new and interesting challenges.
6.) B&Q -
Profile: Europe's largest home improvement retailer. UK employment growth doubled from 17,500 in 2000 to 35,000 by 2003.
Approach: Since 2000, B&Q has used a 12-question survey developed by Gallup, on seven occasions to measure employee engagement - defined by the degree to which workers are emotionally committed to their jobs. Employees respond to each of the 12 questions on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) on a range of topics related to employee needs in the workplace such as friendships, pay, benefits, progress reports, and job related growth opportunities. High scores reflect engaged employees whose needs are being met and who are fully engaged in improving workplace productivity. Middle of the range scores reflect workers who are not engaged, whilst low
scores imply active disengagement - those employees whose needs are not being met and who can actually discourage productivity.
However, the survey does not merely gauge prevailing workplace sentiment, rather it is designed to be a tool for action and strategy development. The survey asks about aspects of engagement that can be influenced by supervisors, such as recognition and communication. Thus depending on the outcome, managers can either plan how to exploit their strengths and/or address the weaknesses.
Further, the survey is designed to translate the 'softer' aspects of workplace emotions and behaviours into a hard measure of engagement, which in turn can be linked to organisational outcomes.
Impact: The use of the Gallup survey at B&Q over 7 separate occasions has allowed the company to build up a wealth of knowledge about what drives engagement within the company and how engagement levels link to greater productivity, better customer engagement and higher profits. The results of surveys have been taken forward into actions to improve scores. Earlier surveys revealed that company-wide, scores were fairly low, prompting management and employees alike to change their attitudes in order to improve engagement. For example, one store scored particularly low on the question 'At work do my opinions seem to count?' Managers changed the agenda of meetings to ask staff if they had issues to raise, and required managers to feed back subsequently on how the issue was being addressed.
Thus the use of the survey here highlights how an issue can be identified, and how actions can be taken to create the environment to enable the issue to be resolved.
B&Q customer surveys reveal that stores that score highly in the engagement survey also score higher on customer satisfaction. Translating this into organisational outcomes, the stores in the top half of customer loyalty generated £3.4m more in sales each year than stores in the bottom half.
7.) Towers Perrin (2003) presents a range of engagement statements, many of which have elements common to the Robinson et al framework, including pride in being part of the organisation, advocacy about the products and services of the organisation, being inspired by the organisation to produce one's best work, and willingness to put in effort above and beyond normal expectations. The full list of the Towers Perrin engagement statements is provided below:
I really care about the future of my company I am proud to work for my company I have a sense of personal accomplishment from my job I would say my company is a good place to work The company inspires me to do my best work I understand how my unit/department contributes to company success I understand how my role relates to company goals and objectives
I am personally motivated to help my company succeed I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond what is normally expected
Based on use of these statements, Towers Perrin (2003) found that just 17% of respondents are 'highly engaged' whilst 19% were found to be 'disengaged. The remaining middle are considered to be the 'moderately engaged'.
8.) RBS - How a major corporation uses its employee data -
Profile: The Royal Bank of Scotland Group ( RBS) has over 140,000 employees in 30 countries.
Approach: RBS has recognised that in an organisation of its size, understanding the effectiveness of its people strategy and 'employee proposition' is a strategic imperative. From 2003, RBS developed a human capital strategy that provides its leaders with a detailed understanding of how effective the group is at attracting, engaging and retaining the best people.
RBS has adopted a human capital 'toolkit' which includes diagnostic tools, benchmarking resources and employee research and measurement tools.
RBS employs the use of comprehensive surveys which benchmark performance and report on a variety of topics such as absence, turnover and diversity. However, the key to the human capital strategy is its annual survey of employee attitudes delivered to all 140,000 staff. The results are communicated around the organisation and managers are provided with an action plan so that at a local level, tangible actions are agreed and targeted.
" This is a sophisticated, business-focused strategy within which employee attitude surveys play a key role" (Aitken 2006 cited in CIPD (2006a))
Impact: RBS publishes its human capital measures in its annual accounts and in its corporate responsibility report. As Aitken highlights " By reporting how our people strategy drives business performance, we differentiate RBS Group as a great company to work for, invest with and bank with. Sharing our approach to developing a highly rewarding and productive workplace is a key part of this approach".
Implications for managers: Employee attitude surveys are a fundamental component of sophisticated strategies for managing human capital. Findings on employee engagement can be used to monitor performance, communication, diversity, leadership and work-life balance. Combining attitudinal data with other indicators in the organisation can provide managers with a greater understanding of the relationship between HR policies and practices and organisational performance.
discretionary effort is the grail managers are seeking. Employees who freely give that extra effort are of tremendous value.
General studies show that a 5% increase in employee engagement results in a 2.5% increase in growth. Growth measured by company value, which in the public sector is measured by stock value.
The relationship between employee engagement, high performance, and company growth is compelling to say the least. Unfortunately, national surveys of company managers show an overall dissatisfaction with employee engagement levels and measures of employee engagement show a very distressing picture...
9.) Schmidt 2004 defines WWB as
" a holistic approach to creating high performance organisations through establishing the right conditions to generate high levels of employee engagement. This approach assumes that achieving high levels of organisational performance depends on employees who are strongly committed to achieving the goals of the organisation, and who show this through their actions. This behavioural objective is influenced in turn by levels of employee satisfaction, and by supportive, respectful and healthy work environments.
10.) Ken Scarlett, USA
The Conference Board "study" of Employee Engagement is a referenced based, not empirically based, journalistic examination of published papers and sales materials that produces a homogenized definition based on word count frequency inaccurately described as "meta-analysis". The Conference Board's definition sets back scientific standardized measurement of engagement to the dark ages by publishing this collated version of definitions drawn primarily from their financial sponsors. Engaging employees is an art and responsibility of management made possible only by statistically measuring 15 engagement drivers via validated survey questionnaire instument with results reported by group and holding managers responsible for keeping employee attitudes towards those engagement drivers within or above the acceptable range. For those interested in a non-mystical, empirically proven definition and practical description of engagement see white papers at www.ScarlettSurveys.com. Be well.
11.) John Truty, Chicago
You need to ask the question ... Why have management and the academics and the consultants been asking these questions since the dawn of the industrial era... Why have they remolded/repackaged/re-re the same basic questions and why have they FAILED? What is it in the basic construction of work (not the physical effort - the construction of the institution of work) that has persisted in defeating attempts by the "professional" to rectify the "problem"?
A re-examination of hierarchy and the distribution of benefits within the corporate entity needs to be questioned. Questioning the standard narrative of hierarchy, who controls work processes and knowledge would seem to be salient. And the basic position for corporate power and the "rights" of management are central. When reviewing the literature of labor and the working classes it would seem as if these types of issues are central. My 30 years experience tells me that as long as management perceives itself as have power over other classes of workers (we tend to forget that management are workers too) that these issues will remain unsolved and a rich source of income for a few with little change in the outcomes.... metrics aside ... we have all experienced how surveys are created and analyzed...
These are issues of power and the benefits accrued to those powerful people ... In my humble opinion, when the benefits of the labor of all the workers are distributed with greater equity these issues will diminish ...
12.)M.S.Sreekumar, Trivandrum/ Cochin, Kerala, INDIA
I am practisng HR for over 3 decades. In the beginning, we were only taking Opinion Surveys. Subsequently, we migrated to Employee Satisfacvton survey also, on selected critical paarmeters. Criticial parameters unwent change/ refinement, as time went by. Contexualising the HR interventions & tracking thier outcomes wer our objective. We were alost trying to identify their acceptance/ rejection & effectiveness of the HR activies were captured. We aso went throguh Climate Surveys. Later, we also went for Employee Commitment Surveys. For the last couple of years, we are also conducting Employee Engagaement Surveys. The surveys output is respoed at the enterprise elvel and Corrective Action/ Preventive Action/ Remedial Plan is put in palce, and actions taken.
13.) Tulasi, India
I feel larger companies have successfully concentrated on mechanisms/concepts to improve employee engagement. Branding angle adds a lot to this. Employees are more satisfied to be associated with bigger brands. In my opinion companies start looking at the concept only after a sizable growth. Smaller organization are
focusing more on increasing business not realizing that the engaged employees can yield better profits. It’s a learning which would come with growth. Bigger organisations also have stronger processes in place which do not allow indivisual interference. leaving little space to the managers to violate "walk the talk" concept.
14.) Rich DiGirolamo, www.richdigirolamo.com
When I talk with clients (and potential clients) about employee engagement I ask them what their employees are doing to get themselves engaged. I ask them what excites their employees. Too often we’re looking to deliver a result or a process rather than deliver a mechanism/concept that will allow the employee to figure it out by his or herself.
Telling your people “this is how you’re going to be engaged” is ludicrous. It’s almost as bad as telling people you’re empowered to run with a task and then all the manager does is steer them and correct them to do it “my way.”
Staff needs to be given far more credit. Staff ideas need to be listened to, heard and implemented. That’s how you get engagement. If you’re going to keep ramming things down their throats………….good luck.
And while I know some of you are envisioning chaos with this approach – let’s just answer one question………………….Is your way working?
15.) Annette Kurer
The reason employee engagement is not articulated easily is the same as the reason that employees are often not engaged in their job and organisation. What is the reason? Most people's dialogue skills let them down and they are unable to communicate with clarity or check their message is understood. Most of us have no idea how we look and sound when we communicate we merely state our point or command and move on. What often happens though is that the other person's understanding and ultimate implementation of our message is different from what we thought we'd conveyed. The impact of our communication has been impaired by how we looked and sounded, we don't check it and we get frustrated when some time down the line the message hasn't transformed into action in alignment with our communication.
16.) Andy Parsley, Green Lion Insight and Solutions, UK
Look after your reputation. If the world believes that your organisation is a poor "corporate citizen" they will tell your people. If your employees believe what they
hear they will increasingly distance themselves from the business. And if they don't, they will get increasingly frustrated if they see that you are doing nothing to correct these misperceptions.
Either way, organisations that proactively manage their reputations will also enjoy higher levels of employee engagement.
17.)Phil Whiteley
To me, the research showing the importance of employee engagement is overwhelming, and goes right back to the Hawthorne experiments in the 1930s. The barrier to wider acceptance of the link is the illogical separation of strategic discussions, policies for greater efficiency, etc from misleadingly entitled 'soft' matters. We need to challenge the false metaphor that people are 'resources' or 'assets'. They're not. They are the company, and produce every asset within it.
18.) Greg Harris, Omaha, Nebraska
It's amazing that the HR community is still debating whether or not employee engagement is a "big deal."
Employee engagement is NOT a fad. It's the byproduct of our economy's transition from an industrial base to a service and information base. As the American workforce evolved from laborers to knowledge workers--a power shift occurred between employer and employee. Engagement will become the best competitive advantage companies will exert to defend their businesses. Engagement research ought to be performed by every company with more than 10 employees. And the results should be scrutinized with the same vigor as financial metrics. My firm operates "Best Place to Work" programs in 41 US markets. The winners of these contests don't leave engagement to "chance." They are intentional about engineering an environment where talented people flourish.
19.) Erik Mazzone, www.erikmazzone.com
Interesting article.
Regarding the concluding paragraph (organizations are attempting to increase employee engagement by flattening hierarchies): I'm not sure this is a sensible response to the problem.
If all of the studies agree that a key factor in engagement is the employee's relationship with his/her direct line manager, doesn't flattening the hierarchy make this more difficult? Flattening a hierarchy (removing layers of bureaucracy and
management) would seem to increase the number of direct reports each manager has. Having more direct reports means a manager has less time for each individual. Less time for each individual means less time to build a personal relationship.
Doesn't this "fix" potentially go in the wrong direction?
No matter the definition of employee engagement, the payback to allowing employees to develop a strong sense of ownership, a feeling that it is their workplace, is huge. Stephen Covey wrote that the difference between essentially poorly motivated and highly motivated employees is about 500% in productivity.
My own experience in four successful turnarounds verifies this difference and indicates that it is within the grasp of every manager should they decide to act appropriately. My definition of same is embodied in the ten question test below.
This is a simple test of 10 questions. Rank yourself (or a manager) on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best or almost always, 1 being the worst or almost never. Add up the points for each question.
If you score close to 100, I would expect that your employees will be over 3 times more productive than if your score was 30 or less. In addition, employees will unleash their full potential creativity and innovation, love to come to work and have very high morale.
Table 3.1 Literature view on impact of engagement
Impact of Employee Engagement
Statement Source
"There are clear links between employee engagement and effectiveness, which, in turn, affect productivity. Employee engagement goes to the heart of organisational capability issues"
Briggs (2005), Australian Government Public Service Commissioner as cited in Meere (2005)
"….high levels of engagement have been found to be associated with a whole range of beneficial outcomes, including high levels of performance"
CIPD (2006c)
"….there appears to be a general willingness to accept the Robinson et al (2004)
underpinning finding: the higher the level of employee commitment, the better the business outcome. If employee engagement is indeed one-step beyond commitment, the reward should be even greater"
"….it takes little persuasion on a theoretical level to convince a business leader that employees who are more committed, work harder and smarter will be better for the company than those who turn up, do merely what they are obliged to do and leave"
Melcrum Publishing (2005)
"Your organisation's success depends on people's true engagement…..Research has shown that engaged employees make for a stronger organisation and better business results"
Right Management (2006)
"Employers want engaged employees because they deliver improved business performance"
CIPD (2007a)
Table 3.2 Importance of Employee Engagement - case study evidence
Case Study Evidence Source
Public Sector
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Runner up in CIPD People Management Awards - Judges' assessment:
"The council made big improvements in employee turnover, satisfaction and absence levels following an employee engagement initiative. Communication between the council officers, the community, unions and council members was outstanding. A good example of how to drive through change quickly, in collaboration with stakeholders."
Brockett (2006)
Cambridgeshire County Council
"We are not a traditional authority. We seem to have more ways to get messages out and actively listen to people."
Johnson (2006)
"If you don't start with the workforce, how can you reach the public? 18,000 ambassadors are better than 18,000 assassins."
Private Sector
BBC
"….the BBC has moved very strongly and sincerely towards an engagement culture and is doing a lot to encourage behaviour that might, elsewhere, fit under this banner. But instead, we talk more about words like 'involve', 'participate' and 'respond' rather than 'engage'. That means creating shared meaning and understanding in such a way that our people actively want to participate."
Melcrum Publishing (2005)
Royal Bank of Scotland
RBS is the world's fifth largest bank and it has the concept of employee engagement at the heart of its business strategy. Its model is based on engaging staff to:
' Say' that the job and company are good ' Stay' with the company and develop it
' Strive' to go the extra mile for the company
Robinson et al (2004) - Appendix 3
Microsoft
"People need to become engaged with the business so that they become advocates of the business. This means that by your employer brand you have to employ the right people to begin with. Microsoft does this well. Not everyone wants to work for Microsoft, but those that are there love it".
"The people who get in have a communications vehicle, systems and processes that reflect what they want in terms of the employer brand and what it stands for. Of course, when you have the right people you have the trouble of creating ways of letting them know what is going on in the business and where they fit in - in regard to business goals and objectives".
McKenzie, A. HR Gateway
West Bromwich "… it has a powerful people engagement strategy IRS Employment
Building Society
that consistently demonstrates the link between leadership, culture and business competitiveness. Most recently the society won the UK Business Excellence award for Employee Satisfaction, which recognises 'outstanding performance in the area of staff development and involvement."
Review
(24 March 2006)
Royal Bank of Canada
"At RBC we decided to reinvent our employee communication so that it would not only inform employees, but do a better job of engaging and aligning their performance with our vision and business goals."
Melcrum Publishing
(Oct/Nov 2006)
3.1 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVES :-
i.) To study the impact of employee engagement on productivity of the
organization.
ii.) To study the various methods of employee engagement prevailing in the
organization.
1. ADOPTED RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AS FOLLOWS :-
RESEARCH PLAN:
Data source Primary & secondary data (questionnaire, different
form as reports, magazines, websites etc.)
Research approach Descriptive research
Research tools Likert’s (z – test), Chi test
Research Instrument Questionnaire
Analytical tools Pie chart
Sample size 30
Sample unit Employee
Sample area Chittorgarh
Questionnaire Structured
Sampling Procedure Judgment Sampling
Data Collection Method Survey
Type of Question Close & Open ended
LIMITATION
The research conduct was limited to Udaipur region only.
Due to time constraints, more time could not be devoted to individual
respondent.
Due to unwillingness of providing any information, the respondents filled the
questionnaire casually which might have effected the conclusion.
Marketing manager being busy with his job. He was not able to spare enough
time for our proper guidance.
A busy schedule of dealers / retailers also makes the collection of information a
very difficult one.
Full district was not covered as this is very tedious job to be done in 7 – days.
However almost all main areas of the district were covered.
The projections are purely based on verbal meetings and may be influenced by
unprecedented factors.
Non – cooperative behavior of the respondent was a big problem in this survey.
While studying the above fact should taken into consideration.
DATA ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION:
1. Employee engagement helps you a lot to increase your knowledge, skill, attitude & ability to perform the job.
10
12
4
3 1
Strongly Agree Agree Not decided
Disagree Strongly disagree
X F FX (X- X) (X-X)2 F(X-X)2
5 10 50 1.47 2.161 21.61
4 12 48 0.47 0.221 2.652
3 4 12 -0.53 0.281 1.124
2 1 2 -1.53 2.341 2.341
1 3 3 -2.53 6.40 19.2
15 30 106 11.40 46.93
TABLE OPTION
S
POINT’S
GIVEN
ON
LIKERT’S
SCALE
(P)
RESP-
ODEN-
TS
(R)
P×R SURVEY
MEAN
(∑P×R/∑R)
STAN-
DARD
DEVIA
-TION
(s)
STAN-
DARD
ERROR
(s/n)2
Strongly
Agree
5 10 50
Agree 4 12 48
Not
Decided
3 4 12
Strongly
Disagree
2 1 2
Disagree 1 3 3
Total 15 30 106 3.53 1.27 0.23
X = ∑FX / N
X = 106 / 30
X = 3.53 (Survey Mean)
2 = F(X-X )2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
N-1
2= 46.93 / 29 = 1.62
= 1.27 (Standard Deviation)
Hypothesis respondents think that there is no significance difference between employee
engagements with regards to productivity of organization.
Points have been allocated to the response using Likert’s scale as
Hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) µ = 3
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) µ 3
Which means that µ may be greater or lesser than 3.
The z value is 1.96 at 95% confidences level or 5% level of significance in table.
So, midpoint will be 1+5/2 =3.
Level of significance for which the formula is
µ ± z Sx
First equation will be:-
µ + z Sx
3 + 1.96 × 0.23
3 + 0.45
3.45 (That’s upper limits.)
Second equation will be:-
µ - z Sx
3 - 1.96 × 0.23
3 - 0.45
2.55 (That’s lower limits)
We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Most respondents agree that employee engagement helps a lot to increase a
knowledge & skills to perform the job.
Percentage of satisfaction of employee engagement uses by the related
respondents. We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Lower limit = 2.55 µ = 3 Upper limit = 3.45
2. You had proper discussion with your head of department on the topics of training or the areas of production are decided after proper discussion with you.
10
12
5
2 1
Strongly Agree Agree Not decided
Disagree Strongly disagree
X F FX (X- X) (X-X)2 F(X-X)2
5 10 50 1.10 1.21 12.10
4 12 48 0.10 0.01 1.2
3 5 15 -0.90 0.81 4.05
2 1 2 -1.90 3.61 3.61
1 2 2 -2.90 8.41 16.82
15 30 117 14.05 37.78
TABLE OPTION
S
POINT’S
GIVEN
ON
LIKERT’S
SCALE
(P)
RESP-
ODEN-
TS
(R)
P×R SURVEY
MEAN
(∑P×R/∑R)
STAN-
DARD
DEVIA
-TION
(s)
STAN-
DARD
ERROR
(s/n)2
Strongly
Agree
5 10 50
Agree 4 12 48
Not
Decided
3 5 15
Strongly
Disagree
2 1 2
Disagree 1 2 2
Total 15 30 117 3.90 1.14 0.21
X = ∑FX / N
X = 117 / 30
X = 3.90 (Survey Mean)
2 = F(X-X )2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
N-1
2= 37.78 / 29 = 1.30
= 1.14 (Standard Deviation)
Hypothesis respondents think that there is no significance difference between employee
engagements with regards to productivity of organization.
Points have been allocated to the response using Likert’s scale as
Hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) µ = 3
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) µ 3
Which means that µ may be greater or lesser than 3.
The z value is 1.96 at 95% confidences level or 5% level of significance in table.
So, midpoint will be 1+5/2 =3.
Level of significance for which the formula is
µ ± z Sx
First equation will be:-
µ + z Sx
3 + 1.96 × 0.21
3 + 0.41
3.41 (That’s upper limits.)
Second equation will be:-
µ - z Sx
3 - 1.96 × 0.21
3 - 0.41
2.59 (That’s lower limits)
We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Most respondents agree that proper discussion with head of department on the
topic of productivity.
Percentage of satisfaction uses by the related respondents. We can say that µ > 3 is
rejected.
Lower limit = 2.59 µ = 3 Upper limit = 3.41
3. The objective of the production were clear to you.
12
1 1 142
Strongly Agree Agree Not decided
Disagree Strongly disagree
X F FX (X- X) (X-X)2 F(X-X)2
5 14 60 1.10 1.21 16.94
4 12 48 0.10 0.01 0.12
3 2 6 -0.90 0.81 1.62
2 1 2 -1.90 3.61 3.61
1 1 1 -2.90 8.41 8.41
15 30 117 14.05 41.20
TABLE OPTION
S
POINT’S
GIVEN
ON
LIKERT’S
SCALE
RESP-
ODEN-
TS
(R)
P×R SURVEY
MEAN
(∑P×R/∑R)
STAN-
DARD
DEVIA
-TION
(s)
STAN-
DARD
ERROR
(s/n)2
(P)
Strongly
Agree
5 14 60
Agree 4 12 48
Not
Decided
3 2 6
Strongly
Disagree
2 1 2
Disagree 1 1 1
Total 15 30 117 3.90 1.19 0.22
X = ∑FX / N
X = 117 / 30
X = 3.90 (Survey Mean)
2 = F(X-X )2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
N-1
2 = 41.20 / 29 = 1.42
= 1.19 (Standard Deviation)
Hypothesis respondents think that there is no significance difference between employee
engagements with regards to productivity of organization.
Points have been allocated to the response using Likert’s scale as
Hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) µ = 3
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) µ 3
Which means that µ may be greater or lesser than 3.
The z value is 1.96 at 95% confidences level or 5% level of significance in table.
So, midpoint will be 1+5/2 =3.
Level of significance for which the formula is
µ ± z Sx
First equation will be:-
µ + z Sx
3 + 1.96 × 0.22
3 + 0.43
3.43 (That’s upper limits.)
Second equation will be:-
µ - z Sx
3 - 1.96 × 0.22
3 - 0.43
2.57 (That’s lower limits)
We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Most respondents agree that objective of production are clear for him.
Percentage of satisfaction of uses by the related respondents. We can say that µ >
3 is rejected.
Lower limit = 2.57 µ = 3 Upper limit = 3.43
4. The senior is able to provide you knowledge about all the aspects, which you want.
8
10
32
7
Strongly Agree Agree Not decided
Disagree Strongly disagree
X F FX (X- X) (X-X)2 F(X-X)2
5 8 40 1.43 2.04 16.32
4 10 40 0.43 0.18 1.80
3 7 21 -0.57 0.32 2.24
2 2 4 -1.57 2.46 4.92
1 3 3 -2.57 6.60 19.81
15 30 107 11.60 45.09
TABLE OPTION
S
POINT’S
GIVEN
ON
LIKERT’S
RESP-
ODEN-
TS
(R)
P×R SURVEY
MEAN
(∑P×R/∑R)
STAN-
DARD
DEVIA
-TION
STAN-
DARD
ERROR
(s/n)2
SCALE
(P)
(s)
Strongly
Agree
5 8 40
Agree 4 10 40
Not
Decided
3 7 21
Strongly
Disagree
2 2 4
Disagree 1 3 3
Total 15 30 107 3.57 1.24 0.23
X = ∑FX / N
X = 107 / 30
X = 3.57 (Survey Mean)
2 = F(X-X )2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
N-1
2 = 45.09 / 29 = 1.55
= 1.24 (Standard Deviation)
Hypothesis respondents think that there is no significance difference between employee
engagements with regards to productivity of organization.
Points have been allocated to the response using Likert’s scale as
Hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) µ = 3
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) µ 3
Which means that µ may be greater or lesser than 3.
The z value is 1.96 at 95% confidences level or 5% level of significance in table.
So, midpoint will be 1+5/2 =3.
Level of significance for which the formula is
µ ± z Sx
First equation will be:-
µ + z Sx
3 + 1.96 × 0.23
3 + 0.45
3.45 (That’s upper limits.)
Second equation will be:-
µ - z Sx
3 - 1.96 × 0.23
3 - 0.45
2.55 (That’s lower limits)
We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Most respondents agree that senior is able to provide to knowledge & information.
Percentage of satisfaction of uses by the related respondents. We can say that µ >
3 is rejected.
Lower limit = 2.55 µ = 3 Upper limit = 3.45
5. The methodology of production was excellent.
11
2 19
7
Strongly Agree Agree Not decided
Disagree Strongly disagree
X F FX (X- X) (X-X)2 F(X-X)2
5 9 45 1.20 1.44 12.96
4 11 44 0.20 0.04 0.44
3 7 21 -0.80 0.64 4.48
2 1 2 -1.80 3.24 3.24
1 2 2 -2.80 7.84 15.68
15 30 114 13.20 36.80
TABLE OPTION
S
POINT’S
GIVEN
ON
LIKERT’S
RESP-
ODEN-
TS
(R)
P×R SURVEY
MEAN
(∑P×R/∑R)
STAN-
DARD
DEVIA
-TION
STAN-
DARD
ERROR
(s/n)2
SCALE
(P)
(s)
Strongly
Agree
5 9 45
Agree 4 11 44
Not
Decided
3 7 21
Strongly
Disagree
2 1 2
Disagree 1 2 2
Total 15 30 114 3.80 1.13 0.21
X = ∑FX / N
X = 114 / 30
X = 3.80 (Survey Mean)
2 = F(X-X )2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
N-1
2 = 36.80 / 29 = 1.27
= 1.13 (Standard Deviation)
Hypothesis respondents think that there is no significance difference between employee
engagements with regards to productivity of organization.
Points have been allocated to the response using Likert’s scale as
Hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) µ = 3
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) µ 3
Which means that µ may be greater or lesser than 3.
The z value is 1.96 at 95% confidences level or 5% level of significance in table.
So, midpoint will be 1+5/2 =3.
Level of significance for which the formula is
µ ± z Sx
First equation will be:-
µ + z Sx
3 + 1.96 × 0.21
3 + 0.40
3.40 (That’s upper limits.)
Second equation will be:-
µ - z Sx
3 - 1.96 × 0.21
3 - 0.40
2.60 (That’s lower limits)
We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Most respondents agree that methodology of production are excellent.
Percentage of satisfaction of uses by the related respondents. We can say that µ >
3 is rejected.
Lower limit = 2.60 µ = 3 Upper limit = 3.40
6. There is open discussion between you & the HRD.
12
2 1 10
5
Strongly Agree Agree Not decided
Disagree Strongly disagree
X F FX (X- X) (X-X)2 F(X-X)2
5 10 50 1.10 1.21 12.1
4 12 48 0.10 0.01 0.12
3 5 15 -0.90 0.81 4.05
2 1 2 -1.90 3.61 3.61
1 2 2 -2.90 8.41 16.82
15 30 117 14.05 36.70
TABLE OPTION
S
POINT’S
GIVEN
ON
LIKERT’S
RESP-
ODEN-
TS
(R)
P×R SURVEY
MEAN
(∑P×R/∑R)
STAN-
DARD
DEVIA
-TION
STAN-
DARD
ERROR
(s/n)2
SCALE
(P)
(s)
Strongly
Agree
5 10 50
Agree 4 12 48
Not
Decided
3 5 15
Strongly
Disagree
2 1 2
Disagree 1 2 2
Total 15 30 117 3.90 1.13 0.21
X = ∑FX / N
X = 106 / 30
X = 3.90 (Survey Mean)
2 = F(X-X )2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
N-1
2 = 36.70 / 29 = 1.27
= 1.13 (Standard Deviation)
Hypothesis respondents think that there is no significance difference between employee
engagements with regards to productivity of organization.
Points have been allocated to the response using Likert’s scale as
Hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) µ = 3
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) µ 3
Which means that µ may be greater or lesser than 3.
The z value is 1.96 at 95% confidences level or 5% level of significance in table.
So, midpoint will be 1+5/2 =3.
Level of significance for which the formula is
µ ± z Sx
First equation will be:-
µ + z Sx
3 + 1.96 × 0.21
3 + 0.41
3.41 (That’s upper limits.)
Second equation will be:-
µ - z Sx
3 - 1.96 × 0.21
3 - 0.41
2.59 (That’s lower limits)
We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Most respondents agree that open discussion with HRD. Percentage of satisfaction
of uses by the related respondents. We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Lower limit = 2.59 µ = 3 Upper limit = 3.41
7. You had achieved your learning goals from the employee engagement.
15
1 1 103
Strongly Agree Agree Not decided
Disagree Strongly disagree
X F FX (X- X) (X-X)2 F(X-X)2
5 10 50 0.93 0.86 8.6
4 15 60 -0.07 0.00 0
3 3 9 -1.07 1.14 3.42
2 1 2 -2.07 4.28 4.28
1 1 1 -3.07 9.42 9.42
15 30 122 15.70 25.72
TABLE OPTION
S
POINT’S
GIVEN
ON
LIKERT’S
RESP-
ODEN-
TS
(R)
P×R SURVEY
MEAN
(∑P×R/∑R)
STAN-
DARD
DEVIA
-TION
STAN-
DARD
ERROR
(s/n)2
SCALE
(P)
(s)
Strongly
Agree
5 10 50
Agree 4 15 60
Not
Decided
3 3 9
Strongly
Disagree
2 1 2
Disagree 1 1 1
Total 15 30 122 4.07 0.94 0.17
X = ∑FX / N
X = 106 / 30
X = 4.07 (Survey Mean)
2 = F(X-X )2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
N-1
2 = 25.72 / 29 = 0.89
= 0.94 (Standard Deviation)
Hypothesis respondents think that there is no significance difference between employee
engagements with regards to productivity of organization.
Points have been allocated to the response using Likert’s scale as
Hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) µ = 3
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) µ 3
Which means that µ may be greater or lesser than 3.
The z value is 1.96 at 95% confidences level or 5% level of significance in table.
So, midpoint will be 1+5/2 =3.
Level of significance for which the formula is
µ ± z Sx
First equation will be:-
µ + z Sx
3 + 1.96 × 0.17
3 + 0.34
3.34 (That’s upper limits.)
Second equation will be:-
µ - z Sx
3 - 1.96 × 0.17
3 - 0.34
2.66 (That’s lower limits)
We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Most respondents agree that achieved learning goal by the employee engagement.
Percentage of satisfaction of uses by the related respondents. We can say that µ >
3 is rejected.
Lower limit = 2.66 µ = 3 Upper limit = 3.34
8. The HRD department seriously follow-up the suggestion provided by you for the improvement of the production.
12
1 1 142
Strongly Agree Agree Not decided
Disagree Strongly disagree
X F FX (X- X) (X-X)2 F(X-X)2
5 14 60 1.43 2.04 28.56
4 12 48 0.43 0.18 2.16
3 2 6 -0.57 0.32 0.64
2 1 2 -1.57 2.46 2.46
1 1 1 -2.57 6.60 6.60
15 30 107 11.60 40.42
TABLE OPTION
S
POINT’S
GIVEN
ON
LIKERT’S
RESP-
ODEN-
TS
(R)
P×R SURVEY
MEAN
(∑P×R/∑R)
STAN-
DARD
DEVIA
-TION
STAN-
DARD
ERROR
(s/n)2
SCALE
(P)
(s)
Strongly
Agree
5 14 60
Agree 4 12 48
Not
Decided
3 2 6
Strongly
Disagree
2 1 2
Disagree 1 1 1
Total 15 30 107 3.57 1.18 0.22
X = ∑FX / N
X = 107 / 30
X = 3.57 (Survey Mean)
2 = F(X-X )2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
N-1
2 = 40.42 / 29 = 1.39
= 1.18 (Standard Deviation)
Hypothesis respondents think that there is no significance difference between employee
engagements with regards to productivity of organization.
Points have been allocated to the response using Likert’s scale as
Hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) µ = 3
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) µ 3
Which means that µ may be greater or lesser than 3.
The z value is 1.96 at 95% confidences level or 5% level of significance in table.
So, midpoint will be 1+5/2 =3.
Level of significance for which the formula is
µ ± z Sx
First equation will be:-
µ + z Sx
3 + 1.96 × 0.22
3 + 0.43
3.43 (That’s upper limits.)
Second equation will be:-
µ - z Sx
3 - 1.96 × 0.22
3 - 0.43
2.57 (That’s lower limits)
We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Most respondents agree that HRD department seriously follow-up the suggestion for the improvement of the production.Percentage of satisfaction of uses by the related respondents. We can say that µ >
3 is rejected.
Lower limit = 2.57 µ = 3 Upper limit = 3.43
9. Is the employee engagement supportive.
15
1 1 112
Strongly Agree Agree Not decided
Disagree Strongly disagree
X F FX (X- X) (X-X)2 F(X-X)2
5 11 55 0.87 0.76 8.36
4 15 60 -0.13 0.02 0.30
3 2 6 -1.13 1.28 2.56
2 1 2 -2.13 4.54 4.54
1 1 1 -3.13 9.80 9.80
15 30 124 16.40 25.56
TABLE OPTION
S
POINT’S
GIVEN
RESP-
ODEN-
P×R SURVEY
MEAN
STAN-
DARD
STAN-
DARD
ON
LIKERT’S
SCALE
(P)
TS
(R)
(∑P×R/∑R) DEVIA
-TION
(s)
ERROR
(s/n)2
Strongly
Agree
5 11 55
Agree 4 15 60
Not
Decided
3 2 6
Strongly
Disagree
2 1 2
Disagree 1 1 1
Total 15 30 124 4.13 0.94 0.17
X = ∑FX / N
X = 106 / 30
X = 4.13 (Survey Mean)
2 = F(X-X )2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
N-1
2 = 25.56 / 29 = 0.88
= 0.94 (Standard Deviation)
Hypothesis respondents think that there is no significance difference between employee
engagements with regards to productivity of organization.
Points have been allocated to the response using Likert’s scale as
Hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) µ = 3
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) µ 3
Which means that µ may be greater or lesser than 3.
The z value is 1.96 at 95% confidences level or 5% level of significance in table.
So, midpoint will be 1+5/2 =3.
Level of significance for which the formula is
µ ± z Sx
First equation will be:-
µ + z Sx
3 + 1.96 × 0.17
3 + 0.34
3.34 (That’s upper limits.)
Second equation will be:-
µ - z Sx
3 - 1.96 × 0.17
3 - 0.34
2.66 (That’s lower limits)
We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Most respondents agree that employee engagement supportive.
Percentage of satisfaction of uses by the related respondents. We can say that µ >
3 is rejected.
Lower limit = 2.66 µ = 3 Upper limit = 3.34
10. If their any feedback system about the production from the production department.
14
1 1 122
Strongly Agree Agree Not decided
Disagree Strongly disagree
X F FX (X- X) (X-X)2 F(X-X)2
5 12 60 0.83 0.69 8.28
4 14 56 -0.17 0.03 0.42
3 2 6 -1.17 1.37 2.74
2 1 2 -2.17 4.71 4.71
1 1 1 -3.17 10.05 10.05
15 30 125 16.85 26.20
TABLE OPTION
S
POINT’S
GIVEN
RESP-
ODEN-
P×R SURVEY
MEAN
STAN-
DARD
STAN-
DARD
ON
LIKERT’S
SCALE
(P)
TS
(R)
(∑P×R/∑R) DEVIA
-TION
(s)
ERROR
(s/n)2
Strongly
Agree
5 12 60
Agree 4 14 56
Not
Decided
3 2 6
Strongly
Disagree
2 1 2
Disagree 1 1 1
Total 15 30 125 4.17 0.95 0.17
X = ∑FX / N
X = 106 / 30
X = 4.17 (Survey Mean)
2 = F(X-X )2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
N-1
2 = 26.20 / 29 = 0.90
= 0.95 (Standard Deviation)
Hypothesis respondents think that there is no significance difference between employee
engagements with regards to productivity of organization.
Points have been allocated to the response using Likert’s scale as
Hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) µ = 3
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) µ 3
Which means that µ may be greater or lesser than 3.
The z value is 1.96 at 95% confidences level or 5% level of significance in table.
So, midpoint will be 1+5/2 =3.
Level of significance for which the formula is
µ ± z Sx
First equation will be:-
µ + z Sx
3 + 1.96 × 0.17
3 + 0.34
3.34 (That’s upper limits.)
Second equation will be:-
µ - z Sx
3 - 1.96 × 0.17
3 - 0.34
2.66 (That’s lower limits)
We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Most respondents agree that feedback system about the production from the production department is available.
Percentage of satisfaction of uses by the related respondents. We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Lower limit = 2.66 µ = 3 Upper limit = 3.34
11. What type of error may arise in your job, if you don’t involve in employee engagement.
12
22 12
2
Confustion Delay
No Error Wastage
Spoilage of the product
X F FX (X- X) (X-X)2 F(X-X)2
5 12 60 1.0 1.0 12.0
4 12 48 0.0 0.0 0.0
3 2 6 -1.0 1.0 2.0
2 2 4 -2.0 4.0 8.0
1 2 2 -3.0 9.0 18.0
15 30 120 15.0 40.0
TABLE OPTIONS POINT’S
GIVEN
RESP-
ODEN-
P×R SURVEY
MEAN
STAN-
DARD
STAN-
DARD
ON
LIKERT’
S SCALE
(P)
TS
(R)
(∑P×R/∑R) DEVIA
-TION
(s)
ERROR
(s/n)2
Confusion 5 12 60
Delay 4 12 48
No Error 3 2 6
Spoilage of
the product
2 2 4
Wastage 1 2 2
Total 15 30 120 4.00 1.17 0.21
X = ∑FX / N
X = 106 / 30
X = 4.00 (Survey Mean)
2 = F(X-X )2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
N-1
2 = 40.0 / 29 = 1.38
= 1.17 (Standard Deviation)
Hypothesis respondents think that there is no significance difference between employee
engagements with regards to productivity of organization.
Points have been allocated to the response using Likert’s scale as
Hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) µ = 3
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) µ 3
Which means that µ may be greater or lesser than 3.
The z value is 1.96 at 95% confidences level or 5% level of significance in table.
So, midpoint will be 1+5/2 =3.
Level of significance for which the formula is
µ ± z Sx
First equation will be:-
µ + z Sx
3 + 1.96 × 0.21
3 + 0.42
3.42 (That’s upper limits.)
Second equation will be:-
µ - z Sx
3 - 1.96 × 0.21
3 - 0.42
2.58 (That’s lower limits)
We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Most respondents agree that error may arise without the employee engagement.
Percentage of satisfaction of uses by the related respondents. We can say that µ >
3 is rejected.
Lower limit = 2.58 µ = 3 Upper limit = 3.42
12. What quality of production you are getting from J.K. cement.
11
1 1 10
7
Excellent Very good Neither good nor bad Bad Worse
X F FX (X- X) (X-X)2 F(X-X)2
5 10 50 1.07 1.14 11.4
4 11 44 0.07 0.00 0.00
3 7 21 -0.93 0.86 6.02
2 1 2 -1.93 3.72 3.72
1 1 1 -2.93 8.58 8.58
15 30 118 14.30 29.72
TABLE OPTION
S
POINT’S
GIVEN
RESP-
ODEN-
P×R SURVEY
MEAN
STAN-
DARD
STAN-
DARD
ON
LIKERT’S
SCALE
(P)
TS
(R)
(∑P×R/∑R) DEVIA
-TION
(s)
ERROR
(s/n)2
Excellent 5 10 50
Very
Good
4 11 44
Neither
good nor
bad
3 7 21
Bad 2 1 2
Worse 1 1 1
Total 15 30 118 3.93 1.01 0.18
X = ∑FX / N
X = 106 / 30
X = 3.93 (Survey Mean)
2 = F(X-X )2
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
N-1
2 = 29.72 / 29 = 1.02
= 1.01 (Standard Deviation)
Hypothesis respondents think that there is no significance difference between employee
engagements with regards to productivity of organization.
Points have been allocated to the response using Likert’s scale as
Hence the Null Hypothesis (Ho) µ = 3
Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) µ 3
Which means that µ may be greater or lesser than 3.
The z value is 1.96 at 95% confidences level or 5% level of significance in table.
So, midpoint will be 1+5/2 =3.
Level of significance for which the formula is
µ ± z Sx
First equation will be:-
µ + z Sx
3 + 1.96 × 0.18
3 + 0.36
3.36 (That’s upper limits.)
Second equation will be:-
µ - z Sx
3 - 1.96 × 0.18
3 - 0.36
2.64 (That’s lower limits)
We can say that µ > 3 is rejected.
Most respondents agree that quality of product are very good.
Percentage of satisfaction of uses by the related respondents. We can say that µ >
3 is rejected.
Lower limit = 2.64 µ = 3 Upper limit = 3.36
FINDINGES AT A GLANCE
Good brands image of J.K. cement in existing market.
Low sales as compaired to market potential, which is around 27 % of the total market.
Birla , Binani and Bangur have maximum market share’s viz.
Less advertisement of the product as compaired to other company.
Lack of self – enthusiasm in working patterns of employees.
Proper communication between employees and HRD and other parties.
Many facility are available to employees from the side of compny on time.
There is a need of a proper information, encouragement & motivation related to
employee engagement.
There is a complaint from the side of retailers is that dealers deal customer directly and
sell cement on lower price, due to this customer does not go to retailers and purchase
from dealers. thus the retailers are not interested to keep stock of J.K. cement & impact
on production department.
SUGGESTIONS A company would be wise to measure employee satisfactions regularly the key to
employee retention is employee satisfaction. Company can increase the role of the employee by considering their suggestions
or complaints about service or product, so that necessary action can be taken. Review meetings should be often held so that the working pattern of the
employees can be checked and improved if needed. Employees need to be more self-enthusiastic and aggressive towards sales for
these appraisals should be gives to those employees who worked hard. Company representatives should reward employees and should make a long term
relationship with the employees so that they can push the product & productivity. Since customer are value maxi miser and their expectation to this brand is high, as
the brand image shows their complaints should be attended immediately to make then remain brand royal.
It should be checked that the non- trade consignment is not sold in the market, so that is does not disturb the retail price of the market.
Since transportation forms the major part of the cement cost, market potential of the region should be properly accessed so that emphasis can be more on high retention zone, which can be done by employing more authorized retailers.
Top management should be convinced to pass the incentives to the employee so that they are motivated to employee engagement & productivity.
Company should increase the promotional and advertisement activities for giving the popularity to the product.
Company should set the policy on pricing. There should be certain time period for increment and decrement in the pricing. Company should also give the prior information for this to employee, dealers and retailers.
There should be proper loading facility in the plant and out side the plant, delivery of goods should be on time.
Top management and employees should maintain proper communication with dealers and retailers.
Increase the number of dealers and retailers as this will help in making high sales volume.
Cash discount should be competitive and luring. Try to remove dealer’s monopoly.
BIBLOGRAPHY & REFERENCES:
BOOKS:
Kotler Philip, ‘marketing management’ prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.
Kothari C. R. ‘research methodology’, vishwa publication, New Delhi. Beri G.C. ‘marketing research’, Tata McGraw-hill publicating Co. Ltd. New
Delhi. Dr. Sharma D.D. ‘marketing research’, Sultan Chand & Sons educational
publication, New Delhi. Saxena Rajan ‘marketing management’ Tata McGraw-hill publicating Co. Ltd.
New Delhi. Verma H. V. ‘marketing of services’ Global business press, New Delhi. Business today magazine of August issue, 2008.
1). Employee engagement helps you a lot to increase your knowledge, skill, attitude & ability to perform the job.
2). You had proper discussion with your head of department on the topics of training or the areas of production are decided after proper discussion with you.
3). The objective of the production were clear to you.
4). The senior is able to provide you knowledge about all the aspects, which you
want.
Strongly agree. Agree. Not decided. Disagree. Strongly
Strongly agree. Agree. Not decided. Disagree. Strongly
Strongly agree. Agree. Not decided. Disagree. Strongly
Strongly agree. Agree. Not decided. Disagree. Strongly
5). The methodology of production was excellent.
6). There is open discussion between you & the HRD.
7). You had achieved your learning goals from the employee engagement.
8). The HRD department seriously follow-up the suggestion provided by you for the improvement of the production.
9). Is the employee engagement supportive.
Strongly agree. Agree. Not decided. Disagree. Strongly
Strongly agree. Agree. Not decided. Disagree. Strongly
Strongly agree. Agree. Not decided. Disagree. Strongly
Strongly agree. Agree. Not decided. Disagree. Strongly
Strongly agree. Agree. Not decided. Disagree. Strongly
10). If their any feedback system about the production from the production
department.
11). What type of error may arise in your job, if you don’t involve in employee engagement.
12). What quality of production you are getting from J.K. cement.
13). By, which sources you know about the J.K.cement center.
14). Your suggestions for the improvement of the production & employee