Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Employee Engagement Tool of Talent Retention Study
Employee Engagement Tool of Talent Retention Study
18311/sdmimd/2017/18024 7
Print ISSN: 0976-0652
Online ISSN 2320-7906
2
Professor & Head, Department of Management Studies, SKN College of Engineering, Pune, India
3
PGDM, VJIM, Hyderabad, India
Abstract
Research article is a study of employee engagement at a pharma company located in Hyderabad. The main
focus of this study is to understand the factors which influence employee engagement and to find the level of
employees engaged at this pharma company located in Hyderabad. Research indicates that companies whose
level of engaged employees are higher have less attrition rate than other companies and also is marked higher
in productivity and customer satisfaction, so this proves that result of employee engagement are impacting the
result in bottom line. For the purpose of the study a questionnaire was prepared based on understanding vari-
ous aspects of company, relationship with the manager and the job. The questionnaire was checked for valida-
tion and reliability and responses were collected from employees who are working at a division on this pharma
company in Hyderabad. The data analysis of the responses has resulted in some findings on gender & flexible
policies, experienced employees & interaction, experienced employees & appreciation and level of engaged em-
ployees. If it is not taken care on time such issues can lead to high attrition rate in company. Happy employees
keep customers happy. Pharmaceutical sector being a sector of critical talent, the retention of talent is a huge
responsibility for HR. To improve the engagement among the employees, based on findings some of the engage-
ment activities like opportunities to share feedback on manager, acknowledge employee contribution on real
time basis, paternity leave policy were suggested in the study to retain employees.
Keywords: Employee engagement, Retention, Flexible work policy, Talent management, Engagement levels
*Email: [email protected]
Revised and modified version of the paper, presented in the 5th International Conference on “Managing HR at the
#
profitability. Organizations actively pursue higher of business situations, and work subtleties with col-
levels of employee engagement to increase produc- leagues and groups to expand performance with the
tivity, imbue positive energy within the corporate job for advantage and excellence of the organization.
culture, and enhance organizational reputation within It is a positive attitude held by the employees towards
the industry or the broader business community. the organization and its values. It leads to optimistic
(Simon L. Albrech, 2011) “Handbook of Employee employee behavior that leads to organizational accom-
Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and plishment.
Practice”.
Higher levels of engagement in domestic and global and
Through the literature from diverse sections, research domestic firms encourage retention of talent, fetches
offered a series of proposals about behavioral engagement, customer loyalty and expand organizational perfor-
psychological state engagement; and trait engagement. In mance and stakeholder value. (Nancy R. Lockwood,
addition, it proposed intentions regarding the effects of 2007)
job attributes and leadership as main effects on state and
behavioral engagement and as moderators of the relation- As organizations have anticipated more from their
ships among the 3 facets of engagement. (William H. workforce and have provided little in return other
Macey, Valtera Corporation; Benjamin Schneider, 2008). than simply a job or employability, it is may be not
surprising that employee pessimism and distrust have
Studies have shown that fully engaged employ- increased. (Susan Cartwrite and Nicola Holmes, 2006)
ees perform better than those who are disengaged.
Specifically, these employees exhibit intense orga- One study shows that there is a significant difference
nizational performance, increased financial success, between job engagement and organization; with show-
elevated productivity, and are retained more than their ing that the co-employee support is a major individual
disengaged employees. factor that influences both measures of engagement
and the work outcomes. (Alogbo C. Andrew & Saudah
HR plays a very crucial role in keeping the employees Sofian, 2012).
engaged. Both employee engagement and retention are
closely related. And this relationship has an impact on Employee engagement is the emotional connection
the top revenues and the bottom-line. an employee has towards the organization and which
impacts his performance and efforts in work. It involves:
The Academic researchers and HR consulting firms • The nature of job or work one does.
are offering their own understandings of the meaning • The communication system and trust employee
of the construct. Some of the points presented by the has in management.
researchers are balancing and they agree that engage- • The capabilities of employee to contribute as per-
ment procedures the prospect for employees to attach formance.
closely with their managers, co-workers and organiza- • The opportunities one gets for growth and devel-
tion in general and the engaging environment is the opment.
environment where employees have positive attitude • The employer brand brings the pride in an employee
toward their job and are willing to do high-quality job. to be associated with a company.
about the company, whether employees have positive The companies whose level of engaged employees is
or negative attitude towards organization and its lead- higher has less attrition rate than other companies and
ers. The behavioral aspect is about the value addition also is marked higher in productivity and customer
by the employees for the organization and comprises satisfaction, so this proves that result of employee
the discretionary efforts an engaged employee brings engagement also shows result in bottom line (Gallup’s
to work in the form of extra time and energy. survey, 2015).
Employee engagement means the functional and emo- The benefits of the employee engagements are reflected
tional connection from the employee towards their on productivity, performance and reduce absentee-
organization. Employee engagement doesn’t mean that ism, reduce disputes, reduce staff turnover and also
making employee satisfied or making employee happy, improves the skill and knowledge of the employees
because a satisfied employee may leave the organiza- (charted institute for professional development, 2009).
tion for the better salary and good opportunities in other
companies and a happy employee might not be produc- Passionate performance is defined as strong, sustained
tive and hardworking at his work place, he might be intellectual and emotional attachment to one’s work.
happy due to various other reasons (company’s facili- Engaged minds build employee performance and
ties etc...). The employee is called as engaged when he engaged hearts ignite employee’s passion. Passionate
is self-driven, passionate, and innovative at his work- performance is all about performance and passion.
place (Kevine Kruse, 2012).
2.1 Characteristics of Passionate Performers
A fully engaged employee doesn’t just work for salary, • Employees are enthusiastic and deliver good
promotion or any self-objectives but he works for the results
organizational objectives. The more level of engaged • Team will have more fun in creating better out-
employees in the organization leads to higher profits comes
(Towers Perrin Research Company, 2012). • Employees are fully present at work, in the moment
and in the flow
Employee engagement is the state of mind which is mea- • They look like people performing at higher levels
sured by performance and productivity of the employees • Work for them feel like play
and it is also supported by prioritizing some of the key • They are passionate about the work. They look for-
elements such as planning, recognition, communication ward to come to work and love the work
and contribution (Kim Monaghan, 2016). • They feel they are important part in big picture.
The expenses on employee engagement programs are When basic needs are fulfilled they can strike the
huge for the company. Although there is a strong cor- passionate performance and engage their hearts and
relation between employee engagement and business minds. Basic needs are two types 1. Intellectual needs
performance but there is no proof that the former causes 2. Emotional needs
the latter. Instead of investing in employee engagement
programs organization can invest where employee gets Engaged minds build employee performance and
more clarity, develop effectiveness and increase com- engaged hearts ignite employee’s passion.
mitment (Ann Latham, 2015).
Discretionary efforts: are people willing to do extra
The word ‘engagement’ is limiting because it assumes time and extra effort to achieve team goals.
that purpose is to engage people rather than building
the organization with meaningfulness, fun, valuable 2.2 Employees Give Discretionary Efforts When
and exciting (Josh Bersin, 2014).
• Choose to work late to complete the project
• Ask how can they serve better to another team employee engagement. The study was undertaken with
• Inquire about how their actions affect another a well-structured questionnaire duly filled by respon-
functions dents with varying demographic and departments. The
• Makes a connections with their decision and com- data for the study was collected using both primary and
pany’s financial results secondary sources. The sample size of the study was
• Treat company’s resources as their own 122 and simple random sampling technique was used.
• Initiate improvements in work methods
• Look beyond their own roles for improvement The study helps understand the various factors which
opportunities influence the employee’s engagement and also shows
• Invests in self-development in their personal time. the importance levels given to each of the variables
under various factors from the perceptions of the
2.3 Disengaged Employees employees.
Gallup survey found that disengaged workers are tend
to be less productive, less loyal, less satisfied, more The data required for the study was collected using the
stressed and insecure about their work. questionnaire which consisted general demographic
information about the respondents such as age, gender,
2.3.1 Symptoms of Disengagement qualification, and department. The questionnaire also
consists study related questions which were designed
• Increased turnover
with an aim to understand the level of engagement
• Missed deadlines
taking into consideration factors like company, job,
• Low morale
and relationship with manager of the employees. The
• High burnouts
secondary data for the study was taken from the HR
• Complacency
department of the company, books, official websites,
• Lack of accountability and responsibility
newspapers, e-journals and published sources.
• Increased absenteeism
The data obtained was analyzed using IBM SPSS
Disengagement is simply because of unfulfilled needs
Version 24.0 software. Following methods were used
for analyzing the data obtained through questionnaire.
2.3.2 Disengaged Employees
• Graphical analysis
They keep looking at the clock. They left their heart • Chi-square test for association
and mind at home. • Exploratory Factor Analysis
2.3.3 Actively Disengaged Employees The following are the factors identified from literature
They feel unhappy and demonstrate their feelings to review to prepare the questionnaire:
their managers and coworkers. (Lee J. Colan, 2009) 1. Company
• Being loyal
3. Objective of the Study • Pride in working for company
• Organizational citizenship
• To identify the factors that contribute to the 2. Relationship with manager
employee engagement. • Accelerated coaching and career support
• To study the associations between key demograph- • Recognition
ics and key aspects of employee engagement. • Accountability
• Work group/Team
4. Research Methodology 3. Job
• Clarity of roles and responsibilities
To achieve the objectives of the study, a questionnaire • Physical setting of work
was prepared and each question is built on a factor of • Safety
Component
1 2 3
Company’s mission is very well connected to me. 0.184 0.265 0.779
My teammates support me in my work. 0.566 0.047 0.561
I get recognized among the public, when I say I’m 0.176 0.128 0.807
from x Company.
I would recommend my company as a great place 0.449 0.311 0.527
to work.
My L+1 provides me training whenever it’s 0.766 0.146 0.258
required for me.
My L+1 appreciates me for my work. 0.832 0.062 0.171
My L+1 communicates my job roles and 0.826 0.196 0.153
responsibilities with clarity.
Figure 3. Scree plot showing the factors. HR policies provide me with flexibility to meet my 0.278 0.731 0.072
Table 3. Total variance explained work and personal responsibilities
Total Variance Explained
The career opportunities provided by the 0.504 0.582 0.067
Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Total % of Variance Cumulative %Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
organisation are helpful for my future growth.
1 6.285 44.895 44.895 6.285 44.895 44.895 4.002 28.588 28.588 The activities of Safety team make me feel safe. -0.094 0.662 0.32
2 1.669 11.924 56.819 1.669 11.924 56.819 2.957 21.123 49.712
3 1.218 8.701 65.52 1.218 8.701 65.52 2.213 15.809 65.52
My L+1’s interaction with me is good. 0.816 0.202 0.128
4 0.783 5.596 71.116 My HR’s interaction with me is good. 0.273 0.829 0.038
5 0.711 5.079 76.195
6 0.615 4.393 80.588
I am recognized for my achivements in the events 0.608 0.489 0.243
7 0.47 3.355 83.943 conducted by Dr.Reddy’s.
8 0.421 3.006 86.949
9 0.41 2.93 89.879
I am aware of company’s organizational and HR 0.074 0.655 0.232
10 0.396 2.83 92.709 policies.
11 0.331 2.366 95.075
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
12 0.287 2.052 97.127
13 0.229 1.636 98.763
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.a
14 0.173 1.237 100 a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
him to achieve the goals), and team mate support (that From the above factor analysis, we conclude that, if one
makes him comfortable in the company). Of course, wishes to understand whether an employee is engaged
other variables also have been importance, but rela- or not, then obtaining the information on the three fac-
tively the above mentioned variables have to be given tors listed is sufficient. Also, the companies can focus
the top priority. In all the three cases, we have consid- and take care of the variables listed under each fac-
ered the sum of frequencies given to agree and strongly tors to ensure that the employee is satisfied with these
agree, to arrive at the important variables. variables, which ultimately makes an employee feel
comfortable and feels engaged in the company.
From figure 6, one can observe that HR policies and
HR interaction (agree + strongly agree) makes an We now study the association between key demograph-
employee more engaged. A company with a good and ics and key aspects of employee engagement.
transparent HR policy gives an employee the expecta-
tions the company has on him/her and at the same time From tables 8 and 9, one can note that, p-value is less
the benefits he/she gets in the company. When there than .05 and null hypothesis is rejected. This indicates
is a need for an employee, at times of crises or any that, there is a significance dependency in gender of
other need,it is very important for the HR manager to employees and flexibility the HR policies give them.
interact and sort out the issues. This study finds that, 83.3% of the women agreed that HR policies provide
these two are key factors in “The Job” factor for a bet- them with flexibility to meet their work and personal
ter employee engagement. responsibilities. This indicates that women in the
selected pharma company are happy. 58.7% of the men
It is interesting to note from the above graphs that, all agreed that HR policies provide them with flexibility
the variables under the factors have been given equal to meet their work and personal responsibilities. From
importance. this analysis, we conclude that any company that want
to have better employee engagement, has to consider Tables 10 and 11 give the results of association between
the flexibility in HR policies. Also, the expectations are experience and L+1 interaction.
slightly different for male and female.
Table 8. Studying the association between gender and flexibility. Since p value is less than 0.05, we reject null hypothe-
Crosstab
sis and conclude that, there is a significance difference
Flexibility Total between experience of the employees and L+1 inter-
Disagree Neutral Agree
Gender Male Count 13 25 54 92 action. 79.8% of the employees who have experience
% within Gender 14.10% 27.20% 58.70% 100.00% of 7 and below years in company agreed that they
Female Count 1 4 25 30
% within Gender 3.30% 13.30% 83.30% 100.00% have good interaction with their manager and 68%
Total Count
% within Gender 11.50%
14 29
23.80%
79 122
64.80% 100.00%
of employees who has experience of more than 7 and
above agreed that they have good interaction with their
Table 9. Chi-Square testChi-Square
results
Tests manager. From this we conclude that, interaction with
Value Df Asymptotic Significance (2-sided) manager is an important aspect with respect to the
Pearson Chi-Square 6.242a 2 0.044
Likelihood Ratio 7.008 2 0.03 study of employee engagement.
Linear-by-Linear Association 5.889 1 0.015
N of Valid Cases 122
From tables 12 and 13 we can see that, p value is less
Table 11. Chi-Square test results the .05, the null hypothesis is rejected and we conclude
that, there is a significance dependency in experience
Value df Asymptotic Significance
of the employees and L+1’s appreciation for employ-
(2-sided) ees work. 78.6% of the employees who has experience
Pearson Chi-Square 7.432a 2 0.024 of 7 and below years in company agreed that they are
Likelihood Ratio 7.329 2 0.026 appreciated by their managers and 57.9% of employees
Linear-by-Linear Association 0.142 1 0.706 who has experience of more than 7 and above agreed
N of valid Cases 122 that they are appreciated by their managers.
Table 10. Studying the association between Experience and interaction with Manager
Crosstab
My L+1’s interaction with me is good. Total
Disagree Neutral Agree
Experience in company’s 7 years and below Count 8 9 67 84
% within Experience in company’s 9.50% 10.70% 79.80% 100.00%
7 years and above Count 1 11 26 38
% within Experience in company’s 2.60% 28.90% 68.40% 100.00%
Total Count 9 20 93 122
% within Experience in company’s 7.40% 16.40% 76.20% 100.00%
Table 12. Studying the association between Experience and Manager’s appreciation
Crosstab
My L+1 appreciates me for my work. Total
Disagree Neutral Agree
Experience in company’s 7 years and below Count 7 11 66 84
% within Experience in company’s 8.30% 13.10% 78.60% 100.00%
7 years and above Count 2 14 22 38
% within Experience in company’s 5.30% 36.80% 57.90% 100.00%
Total Count 9 25 88 122
% within Experience in company’s 7.40% 20.50% 72.10% 100.00%
Jindal, P., & Shaikh, M. (2015). A Study of Behavioral Mone, E. M., & London, M. (2014). Employee engagement
Training as Talent Management Strategy in Organisations. through effective performance management: A practical
Universal Journal of Management,3(1), 1–6. guide for managers. Routledge.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal Retrieved August 3, 2016, Crossref
engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Retrieved August 3, 2016, Crossref
management journal, 33(4), 692–724. Retrieved August 3, 2016, Crossref
Kruse, K. (2012, June 22). What is employee engage- Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The driv-
ment. Forbes. Crossref ers of employee engagement. Institute for Employment
Latham, A. (2015, November 1). 10 reasons your employee Studies.
engagement program is hurting your company. Forbes. Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of
Crossref employee engagement. Journal of managerial psychol-
Little, B., & Little, P. (2006). Employee engagement: ogy, 21(7), 600–619.
conceptual issues. Journal of organizational culture, Sundaray, B. K. (2011). Employee engagement: a driver
communication and conflict, 10(1), 111. of organizational effectiveness. European Journal of
Lockwood, N. R. (2005). Employee engagement. SHRM Business and Management, 3(8), 53–59.
Research Briefly Stated. Retrieved on January, 27, 2008 Wagner, R. (2015, August 7). Stop using employee friend-
Lockwood, N. R. (2007). Leveraging employee engagement ships to measure engagement. Retrieved from Leadership
for competitive advantage. Society for Human Resource & Managing people, Crossref
Management Research Quarterly,1, 1–12. Watson, W. T. (2014, August ). The 2014 global workforce
Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement study. Retrieved August 3, 2016, Crossref
and manager self-efficacy. Journal of management devel-
opment, 21(5), 376–387
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of
employee engagement. Industrial and organizational
Psychology, 1(1), 3–30.