Article No.19

FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

A STUDY OF DIVERSE WORKFORCE

Soni Agrawal Assistant Professor, International management Institute, New Delhi (India)

Abstract: Employee Engagement is a complex and challenging goal for an organization. In today‟s diverse

workforce it has become even more challenging. An engagement-friendly culture is valuable as it considers the

value of multi-generational and multi-cultural workforce. An organization is considered a great place to work that

respects the needs of each individual employee along with motivating each of them to pursue their individual goals.

The present study highlights the needs of different individuals along with expectations from the organization. A

specific emphasis is given on understanding Generation Y specific traits, needs and expectations, which are found

vital in today‟s context. A focus is also given in understanding as how Generation Y employees behave and what

motivates them and how it is different from generation x employees. Moreover, diversity based on ethnicity and

region is also considered in this article. The organization that is keen in understanding the needs and willing to

support their employees in their development leads to better outcomes.

In the present study a survey methods is applied and also the conceptual model is tested with a sample of 254

employees from diverse culture as well as age. In this study some factors that denote HR practices are derived

important are taken from earlier studies. Also factor „locus of control‟ is taken to analyze individual personal

difference on the performance of the organization.

Key words: Engagement, diverse work force, generation y, generation x, satisfaction, motivation

Introduction

The meaning of engagement can be understood as an act of engaging or state of being engaged.

Many experts do not agree on what it means at the workplace, or how it can be achieved. There

is no one-size-fits-all solution, to be sure, but success can be achieved if one understands the

significance of engagement and moves beyond defined rules.

In general while exploration, it was found that people understand employee engagement as a

state of mind, where one feels satisfied, empowered, and committed at work. Others suggested in

a different way as they characterized engagement by such behaviors as persistence and initiation.

Some of them described term engagement as innate personal characteristics like the right

attitude, level of energy or point of view. Some define engagement as a combination of all of

these.

According to Macey and Schneider (2008), Employee engagement is a desirable condition. It has

an organizational purpose, and connotes involvement, commitment, passion, enthusiasm, focused

effort, and energy, so it has both attitudinal and behavioral components. Employee Engagement

was defined by Kahn (1990) as “the harnessing of organization members‟ selves to their work

roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and

emotionally during role performances”.

The second approach to the concept of engagement was in research on burnout. Maslach and

Leiter (1997) and Maslach et al. (2001) conceptualized engagement as opposite or the positive

antithesis to the three burnout dimensions: exhaustion, cynicism, and sense of

inefficacy.Schaufeli et al. (2002) provided a third approach for employee engagement, asserting

that job engagement and burnout were independent states of mind and inversely related to each

other. They defined engagement as a positive, fulfilling, work related state of mind that is

characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. Vigor refers to the feeling of physical energy,

emotional strength, willingness to invest effort, and endurance of difficulties. Dedication is

characterized by a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Finally,

absorption refers to the state of being so completely concentrated and highly engrossed in work

that an employee feels time passes quickly and has difficulties detaching from work (Schaufeli et

al., 2002).

Wellins and Concelman (2005) suggested that engagement is „„an amalgamation of commitment,

loyalty, productivity and ownership.‟‟ Wellins and Concelman (2005) further said that

engagement is „„the illusive force that motivates employees to higher (or lower) levels of

performance.”

A number of popular views of engagement suggest that engaged employees not only contribute

more but also are more loyal and therefore less likely to voluntarily leave the

organization.Whatever, the understanding is or the confusion over definition, there is a

widespread agreement that an engaged workforce leads to higher retention and productivity,

lower stress, better customer satisfaction, and ultimately results. The cost of not addressing

engagement is tremendous. A 2013 Gallup report (Crabtree, 2013) on US employees showed that

70 percent of workers are not engaged or actively disengaged, placing the annual estimated loss

in U.S. business productivity at $450- $550 billion.

A company can have the best reward system, training and development, and human resource

(HR) policies, but if people do not feel good about themselves then neither can behavior change,

nor training be effective. Getting employees‟ commitment and loyalty is not easy. It is not about

giving to get, either. Employees are not stupid. They know when the conditions are true and

when it is right to give their all for the company. Thus, it is inferred that engagement is both

psychological and physical presence of employees in the organizations while occupying different

roles. Employee Engagement is also understood as emotional and intellectual commitment to the

organization (Shawand Fairpunt, 2005) and also the amount of discretionary effort exhibited by

employees in their job (Frank et al.,2004). As per Robinson et al.(2006) Employee Engagement

is „one step up from commitment‟. On the other hand, it can be deduced that employee

engagement is not a new thing rather a trend with different appearance or some might call “old

wine in a new bottle” Saks (2006).

From the above definitions and understanding in general, it can be concluded that employee

engagement is a psychological construct, although, in research literature it is not very precise,

rather commonly it is used to refer to both role performance and an effective state.It is actually

much deeper than simply an incentive program. If one wants to change people‟s behavior, then it

becomes necessary to understand as how they view their life, to make engagement program

effective for the company.

A recent study by Tower Watson on 50 firms over a period of one year found there was an

increase of 19% in operating income and about 28% earnings per share (EPS) with the result of

high employeeengagement. Inversely, organizations with low level of engagement among

employees experienced about 32 % drop in operating income and 11 % decline in EPS

(McConnell, 2011). A recent research by Harvard Business Review (HBR) also reinforced that

employee engagement is becoming the center of attraction among many organizations. Based on

research, it was realized that 71% of the people have the opinion that employee engagement is

very crucial for an organization. Moreover, it was also realized that this influences positively in

reducing the hiring and retention cost. It improves corporate growth, productivity and positively,

influences the bottom line. In addition, a study involving 17 multi-national companies gave the

conclusion that 80% of engaged employees are more productive and less likely to leave the

company in a short period of time (Hui et al., 2007). Thus, companies should value these aspects

in terms of engaging their employees. Moreover, more rigorous research in different sectors and

industries may help organizations to understand the real benefit of employee engagement in their

own sector.

Similar Constructs

Employee engagement is generally misunderstood with similar constructs such as job

satisfaction, motivation, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior

(OCB). Actually, there is a difference and are not the same. Job satisfaction is a feeling of having

role and responsibilities in the organization that leads to positive emotional state resulting from

one‟s job or job experience.

The other word organizational commitment can be understood as the degree to which an

individual is committed to its goals. Organizational commitment involves a sense of belonging,

personal meaning, and being a part of the family (Meyer and Allen, 1997). Actually,

organizational commitment is one of the important facets of engagement, but not the same as

engagement (Saks, 2006).

OCB can be understood as desirable and discretionary behavior that is related to job satisfaction

and organizational commitment. According to Little and Little (2006) OCB is an outcome of job

satisfaction and organizational commitment. Moreover, OCB can also be understood as one of

the facets of engagement, rather than being engaged.

According to Paullay et al. (1994) job involvement is the result of a cognitive judgment of need

satisfying abilities and is tied with self image that individuals experience in their roles. Job

involvement is the degree to which one is cognitively preoccupied with, engaged in and

concerned with one‟s present job (Paullay et al., 1994), where as employee engagement entails

active use of emotions and behaviours, in addition to cognitions. May et al. (2004) found

engagement as an antecedent to job involvement as engagement is a state of involvement that

implies a positive and relatively complete state of engagement of core aspects of self in the job

(Brown, 1996). Thus, engagement can be distinguished from job involvement construct as in job

involvement the focus is on work alone rather than on the organization.

Individual differences

Earlier literature supports that individual differences impact on work performance. As per Kahn

(1990), psychological differences of individuals impact on their ability to engage or disengage in

their role performance. Locke and Taylor (1990) recognized the relatedness needs individuals

possess, arguing individuals who have rewarding interpersonal interactions with their co-workers

experience greater meaning in their work. Kahn(1990) also suggested that client relations for

some individuals (eg camp counselors) may play a role in providing a meaningful work

experience.

Gender differences have also been found, such that men experience enrichment from work to

family, while women experience depletion from work to family. While women experience

enrichment from family to work, men experience no links from family to work (Rothbard, 1999).

Gallup did observe a difference between employees who are single and those who are married. It

was found that married employees tend to have a higher level of engagement than those who are

single.

In an organization we see people from different age group. These employees are as young as 22-

25 years old and also employees aged 60 years and so. The nature of these employees and how

they perform the work is very different from each other. Moreover, the value system and the

sense of appreciation towards incentive and benefit programs is also different.

Millennials are born between 1979 and 1994 (Smola and Sutton, 2002). These young employees

are termed as „generation y‟. These new entrants to the workforce are often stereotyped as “job

hoppers” due to their preference for multiple career paths (Gursoy et al., 2008; Myers

andSadaghiani, 2010), compared to Baby Boomers, who have spent most of their careers in one

organization. Millennials are characterized as having high levels of self-confidence and self-

reliance; they are independent, individualistic, and socially active and like to work in teams (Shih

and Allen, 2007). They are the children of nurturing and protective mothers and fathers, who

have responded to their every emotional, educational and physical need. Moreover, they have

praised their children for every small effort they have made. They have high expectations for

themselves, and prefer to work in teams, rather than as individuals. These employees give utmost

importance to work, however, wish immediate results in their work, and desire for speedy

advancement (Gilbert, 2011). The study of Agrawal and Ojha (2016) also supports the above

facts as it was found in their study that the level of engagement was low among Gen Y in

comparison with other two generations such as baby boomers and generation X, which justifies

initial conceptualization that Gen Y is more demanding and wants to work on its own pace. They

might not be very satisfied with the available benefits and opportunities in their organizations.

These employees have grown up in a time where information has become available instantly.

Consequently, when they enter the world of work, they also have high expectations of

recognition, approval and being rewarded by their employers. For similar reasons, they also have

a strong desire to be led with clear directions and be well supported by their managers (Martin,

2005). In addition, Millennials are technology literate and are very comfortable with the internet

world, as they have grown up in an environment of technology and thus, are familiar with mobile

phones, lap-top computers, real-time media and communications (Shaw and Fairhurst, 2008).

This lowers their level of patience and also engenders in them immediate feedback expectations

from their managers, thusretaining the Millennials, who have strong preference for multiple job

movements is challenging (Eddy et al., 2010).

Literature Review

As per Weyland (2011), employees who are born in 1980-1990 are generally referred as

generation Y (Gen Y). These employees are considered complex and are full of contradictions.

These employees are technology savvy. They care for environment, but love to travel. They

believe in building and maintaining relationships over money. They are vocal and do not hesitate

in sharing what they feel and what they do not like. They are highly creative and can be an asset

for an organization as they have the potential to perform, but key is to understand and extract the

potential they have as they are going to become the leaders and managers of tomorrow. As far is

engaging Gen y is concerned, it should be listening their needs full heartedly. Only lip service

may not do as they will sense it immediately and will move on when they find it.

Workplace characteristics of different generations

Areas People who born

between 1946 and

1964

Persons who born between

1964 and

1979)

Persons who born

between

1979 and 1994)

Work ethic & values Workaholics who

work efficiently

for personal

fulfilment; and

Desiring of

quality and

question

Authority

Self-reliant, but also want

structure and direction

Can multi-task;

Tenacious and

entrepreneurial; and

Tolerant and goal

oriented

Examples of

engagement

Personal

development

Intellectual simulation Social interaction

between employees

Communication In Person Direct & Immediate Social media

Interactive style Team player Entrepreneur Participative

Feedback & rewards Money &

recognition

Require regular feedback &

require & value autonomy

Require constant

feedback & rewards

through meaningful

work

Work/life balance Poor work/life

balance

Value balance between work

& personal life

Life outside work is

valued more

Sources: Adapted from Ruch (2005), Consultrix (2014), Chen and Choi (2008), Shaw and

Fairhurst (2008)

Divers of Employee Engagement

Saks (2006) defined Employee Engagement in different way and gave a distinction between two

types of engagement, job engagement and organization engagement. In addition, it was also

argued and further tested that both job engagement and organization engagement are different in

terms of their antecedents and consequences. The reason behind that is both serve different

purposes and share different relationship. Moreover, the relationship and the difference between

the two terms of Employee engagement were further reinforced by Harter et al., 2002.They

concluded that, “…employee satisfaction and engagement are related to meaningful business

outcomes at a magnitude that is important to many organizations”.

According to Robinson (2006), employee engagement can be achieved through the creation of an

organizational environment where positive emotions such as involvement and pride are

encouraged, resulting in improved organizational performance, lower employee turnover and

better health. The experience of engagement has been described as a fulfilling, positive work-

related experience and state of mind (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004), and has been found to be

related to good health and positive work affect (Sonnentag, 2003). West (2005) argued that when

individuals feel positive emotions, they are able to think in a more flexible, open-minded way

and are also likely to feel greater self-control, cope more effectively and be less defensive in the

workplace. They found that, overall, engaged employees are less likely to leave their employer.

The findings of the 2006 CIPD survey on engagement confirm this too (Truss et al.,2006). The

results of Agrawal (2015) found that a good job and employee fit provides opportunities to them

for getting involved more in the work. This positively influences their attitude towards work and

their self development as well.

However, engagement is an individual-level construct and it does lead to business results, it must

first impact individual-level outcomes. The Gallup Organization (2004) found critical links

between employee engagement, customer loyalty, business growth and profitability. In 2004,

International Survey Research (ISR), the international research consultancy, completed a major

survey into the nature and causes of employee engagement and how companies can improve

engagement to enhance business performance. The survey was conducted across ten of the

world‟s largest economies -Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Hong Kong, the

Netherlands, Singapore, the UK and the USA, involving nearly 160,000 employees from across a

broad spectrum of industries. The research demonstrates that one size does not fit all when it

comes to motivating employees to engage with their company and work. Previous research

(Hofstede, 1997) has shown that organizations must adapt to different cultural values and norms

when it comes to attracting, motivating and retaining staff.

Purpose of the study

Focusing on the multi-generational and diverse workforce, the aim of this study is to understand

the drivers of employee engagement. This means understanding the nature and requirement of

individuals who are diverse in terms of age, nationality, educational background and gender. The

results of the studywill encourage employee engagement in organizational set up and enabling

the more effective management of an increasingly multi-generational and diverse workforce.

Methodology

Sample

The study was carried out taking sample employees working in different private as well as

Government organizations. Employees vary as they belong to different age group. These

employees are from different countries. All the employees have minimum educationgraduation

and some of them are having engineering degree or even post graduates. Data collection for the

study was carried out through online as well as offline survey.

Method

In the present study quantitative method is used and for collection of data both online and offline

modes are used. The reason behind using both ways is as conceptualized initially in the present

study, employees belong to different age group, where as young employees are technology savvy

and they are more comfortable with online mediums, whereas older employees prefer working

offline with face-to-face interaction.

A questionnaire was used, which was tested earlier in the study of Agrawal and Ojha (2015). The

questionnaire was tested on a pilot study on a sample of 35 respondents and the reliability was

measured. The reliability and validity scores of the factors were found satisfactory except factor

„inter-personal relations (IPR). Thus, factor IPR was dropped from the final questionnaire.

Finally, 25 questionnaires were used in the present study. The roles and responsibilities of the

respondents vary from senior manager, executives, chief manager, director, and chief

administrative officer.

In this present study as conceptualized that there might be variation in the level of engagement

among employees as different generations work at the same time. Analysis was based on

different age groups as 21-34 representing generation y (Gen Y), 35-50, representing generation

X (Gen X), and above 50 as baby boomers.

As already mentioned, employee engagement was measured using single dimension using 9

items. All statements were positively worded and response to each statement was sought on the

following 4 – point scale: Not at all true (0); Somewhat true (1); Largely true (2); Absolutely

true (3). The achieved sample meets the customary requirement of adequacy of sample size in

terms of (a) 95% level of confidence and (b) 5 % margin of error. Moreover, as shown below,

the achieved sample represents a fairly good cross-section of the total managerial manpower in

terms of occupational status:

Sl.

No.

Occupational Status Sample Size Sample %

1 Senior Managers 53 20.87

2 Upper Middle Managers 106 41.73

3 Lower Middle Managers 94 37.01

Total 254

Sample Profile

The respondents are relatively young. Most of them (53.3%) are in the age group 21 – 34 years,

another 37.3% are in the age group 35 – 50 years, and the remaining 24% belong to the age

group 50 and above years. The mean age for the sample of 50 managerialemployees is

35½years. There are only 52 female employees (18%), while all others are males. Except for

just 4 employees (8%) who are undergraduates,all others are either graduates (32%) or post-

graduates (60%). The young age of the sample is also reflected in their relatively short work

experience. Their average total work experience is around 9½ years.

Variables

Although, the 7 multi-item variables mentioned above have already been used in the one earlier

study in the series, it was decided to establish their reliability once again before using the data

generated by the present study. We used two conditions for accepting a variable as a reliable

measure of any construct. First, the reliability coefficient (Cronbach Alpha) for the variable

should be equal to or higher than 0.60. If this cut-off point could be reached by deleting one or

more item(s) the said item(s) should be deleted. Second, in the finally retained set of items, the

item-to-total correlation should be equal to or higher than 0.30. The application of these two

conditions resulted in the reduction of variables from 8 to 7 and the total number of their

constituent items getting reduced from 39 to 35, as shown below:

The Findings

Table 1 presents the main findings of this study in a summarized form. The measure of

employee engagement indicates level of engagement among the employees. Insofar as

engagement is concerned, they are found to be quite highly engaged (32.25%). This shows that

the employees like the nature of work that they are assigned to therefore; they are highly engaged

in their work. For most of them, it is absolutely necessary to be engaged in some work; they

welcome responsibility and challenge; they see work as a source of social identity, and a medium

for self-expression as well as attainment of perfection in life. Most of the respondents consider

sincerity, hard work, and integrity as the golden keys to success in the pursuit of their career.

Last but not the least; they believe that a job well done is a reward in itself.

Table 1: Mean Score, Standard Deviation and Other Descriptive Statistics for each of the

Selected Variables (N=254)

S.

No.

No. Of Items

Initially

No. of

Items

Retained

Score

Range

Cronbach’s

alpha

Mean

Score

Std.

deviation

Mean

Score as

%

1 Engagement 9 1-27 .77 32.25 4.31 119.44

2 Locus of

Control

3 1-9 .73 8.69 2.02 96.56

3 Career

Development

4 1-12 .81 10.41 2.89 86.75

4 Job

Characteristics

5 1-15 .71 14.52 2.67 96.8

5 Objectivity 5 1-15 .72 13.26 3.23 88.4

6 Pay &

Benefits

7 1-21 .81 19.37 4.22 92.24

7 Organization

Citizenship

Behaviour

2 1-6 .78 5.91 1.48 98.5

X Score as % =Mean Score

Upper Limit of the Score Range

x 100

Note: As the range of scores for the 10 variables is not the same in all cases, it is not possible to

compare the mean scores across the variables. Therefore, each mean score has been

converted into a percentage (reported in the last column of this table) by using the

following formula:

With a fairly high mean score of 96.56%, the employees are also found to be endowed by an

internal locus of control. Persons with this personality trait believe that whatever they achieve in

life (whether good or bad) is the result of their own effort and ability. Most of them believe that

to obtain a reward such as a promotion or an increase in salary, etc., they will have to put in hard

work and an extra effort. They feel if the cause is right, they can convince others; if people raise

their voice, they can change the world; and if you possess the necessary skills, you can get along

with people. In short, a person with an internal locus of control considers himself to be the

master of his own fate.

Turning to the perceived internal climate of the organization in terms of its six dimensions, it is

found that one of them is rated quite positively. This is Organization Citizenship Behavior

(98.50%). Out of the remaining five dimensions, threeother are also rated high. These are job

character ship (96.8%) and locus of control (96.56%), and pay and benefits (92.24%). The

remaining two parameters, objectivity and career development, are given moderate ratings of

88.4% and 86.75% respectively.

To sum up, the respondents are highly engaged in terms of the work they do. They are endowed

with a high level of positive internal locus of control. The ratings of six dimensions of

organizational climate show considerable variation, ranging between quite high (98.50%) and

moderate (86.75%).

Table 3: Inter-Factor: Correlation among Variables

EE LOC CD JC OBJ PnB OCB

EE 1 .180**

.392**

.319**

.422**

.357**

.406**

LOC 1 .334**

.370**

.367**

.325**

.229**

CD 1 .551**

.743**

.706**

.481**

JC 1 .546**

.513**

.409**

OBJ 1 .643**

.541**

PnB 1 .504**

OCB

1

** significant at .01

The twin objectives of the present study being (a) ascertaining the level of employee engagement

and (b) identifying the factors that influence engagement among diverse workforce, we now turn

to analysis of data to discover the predictors of engagement. As a first step in this direction, we

present in Table 2 inter-correlation matrix for all the 7 variables. A look at the Table shows that,

all the seven variables are positively and significantly related to each other.

Table 3: item – Total Correlation among Variables

Factor: Employee Engagement

EE1 .05**

EE2 .15*

EE3 .26**

EE4 .18**

EE5 .16**

EE6 .28**

EE7 .41**

EE8 .25**

EE9 .28**

Factor: Locus of Control

LOC1 .76**

LOC2 .73**

LOC3 .67**

Factor: Career Development

CD1 .78**

CD2 .75**

CD3 .82**

CD4 .84**

Factor: Job Characteristics

JC1 .64**

JC2 .60**

JC3 .60**

JC4 .69**

JC5 .59**

Factor: Objectivity

OBJ1 .61**

OBJ2 .64**

OBJ3 .67**

OBJ4 .80**

OBJ5 .74**

Factor: Pay & Benefits

PnB1 .75**

PnB2 .73**

PnB3 .74**

PnB4 .53**

PnB5 .71**

PnB6 .69**

PnB7 .62**

Factor: Organization Citizenship Behavior

OCB1 .89**

OCB2 .89**

Between the six measures of organizational climate, the former two are found to be relatively

more important than the latter four in influencing employee engagement. Table 3 indicates a

item-total correlation. The reason behind identifying the relationship is to prove the validity of

the factors. All the variables are showing medium to high correlation (item-total), which proves

the validity of the variables.

The six potential predictors of employee engagement are found to be moderate to highly

correlate among themselves. Further, to test the presence of multi-collinearity, it is not possible

to identify the real predictors of engagement based only on the bi-variate correlations presented

in Table 3. Hence multi-variate analysis was carried out using linear regression technique.

With the help of linear multiple regression, it is possible to identify a combination of

independent variables that simultaneously meets the following two conditions: (a) it should

explain the highest amount of variance in the outcome variable, and (b) the contribution of each

variable in the said combination should be statistically significant.

The outcome of this analysis is reported in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 4: The Critical Predictors of Employee Engagement (N=254)

Sl.

No.

Predictor Zero-Order

Correlation(A)

Std. Beta

Coefficient()

Individual

Contribution(A x B)

1. Locus of Control .451 .285 (.01) .123

2. Job Characteristics .499 .280 (.01) .140

3. Pay & Benefits .427 .151 (.050) .064

4. Organization Behavior .378 .145 (.022) .055

5. Age .191 .151 (.033) .029

R2= .37 Adjusted R

2= .35 F8, 103= 23.83

**

DW= 2.0

*** P<.001 * P<.05

As shown in Table 4, variablelocus of control is found as critical predictor of employee

engagement. Besides locus of control, we also collected data on demographic background of

employees under the following 6 heads: age, gender, level of education, length of work

experience, designation, and nationality. The relationship between each of these 6 variables and

employee engagement was tested with the help of difference-of-means (t) tests. None of these

tests showed a statistically significant relationship except age. It may be concluded that

employee engagement among the knowledge workers we studied is not influenced by their

demographic background; however different age group employees vary in terms of their level

and predictors of employee engagement. Other variables that influence employee engagement

are job characteristics =.28 (.01), pay and benefits =.15 (.05), and organization citizenship

behavior =.15 (.02).

Discussion and Conclusion

Even though employee engagement construct is more popular in the world of practice than

among academic scholars, the latter must address this topic for at least two reasons. Firstly, this

construct has its roots in the well-known academic constructs such as job satisfaction, job

involvement, organisational commitment, OCB and flow. And, secondly, the ultimate test of the

worth of any academic /theoretical proposition is its applicability in and acceptance by the world

of practice. Guided by these two considerations, the first author has launched a series of studies

on employee engagement in India. The study on which this paper is based is a part of the said

series.

The present study was carried out to understand factors that influence employee engagement

among diverse workforce. The sample consisted of 254 managerial employees. The collection

of data was through a structured questionnaire completed both either online or offline by the

respondents. The conceptual understanding is that employees from different age group and place

have different likings and expectations from the organization, thus, „one size fits all‟ does not

work as far as expectations from an organization is concerned. Overall the findings of the present

study are very much in line with theoretical concepts discussed in this study. Their scores on the

personality trait are found to be quite high. Compared to the personal attribute, the

organisational climate experienced by the respondents is also found to be rated equally high.

The mean scores for the five dimensions of climate range between 86.75% (career development)

and 98.5% (organization citizenship behaviour). This finding suggests that there is considerable

scope for improvement of some of the policies and practices in the sphere of human resource

management. It provides the theoretical foundation to explain as employees choose to become

more or less engaged if they find their job interesting and enough resources are available to do

the work. Moreover, an employee feels obliged to the organization when they receive socio and

economic benefits as wants to repay back to the organization in the form of engagement.

Moreover, the environment of an organization influences a lot. If employees find positive

environment, a sense of team work, learning opportunities, then they tend to stay longer in the

organization. For example, the respondents are found to be endowed with internal locus of

control.

Practical implications

There are very few studies that examined employee engagement practices among diverse

workforce. The above study fills the gap. Moreover, the study discusses the influence of

personality factor on employee engagement. Results of the study confirm that there is a

significant influence of personality factor on employee engagement.

There is an urgent need of HR interventions which is reflected by the results of the study. There

are a lot of concerns related HR policies and practices as reflected from the results. There is a

need of exploration as why employees are not finding HR practices interesting and what are their

views in relation to this so that management. Out of the five dimensions of climate, there are

three dimensions such as job characteristics, pay and benefits, and organization citizenship

behaviour thathave emerged as predictors of employee engagement.

In other words, employee engagement in the present study is not found to be the product of any

management initiatives that are perceived favourably by the employees. On the other hand,

employee engagement in the present case is influenced primarily by their personal attributes plus

a situational factor that seems to be neglected by the management. The findings are a clear

indication that organization should put efforts in improving the organization climate if they

really value them and believe that engaged employees are an asset to the organization.

The findings of this study have reiterated once again that employee behaviour (like human

behaviour in general) is the product of both personal attributes of the subject and the situation

within which she operates. Whereas both personality traits selected for this study have emerged

as the critical predictors of engagement, the socio-economic and demographic background

factors are not found to influence employee engagement.

Some of the limitations of the present study need to be acknowledged. The sample could not

include more traditionalist (aged employees more than 60) as these employees are generally

hesitant to share their feelings. Moreover, most of the employees are from India, followed by

Africa and Europe. Even though the present sample is consisting a diverse workforce, but the

distribution of sample is not equal to all the employees from different nationalities.Since the

study could not cover equally to all the nationalities, the findings cannot be generalised to other

organisations.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the contribution of this study may be seen in a number of

ways. The paper contains a fairly comprehensive literature review and coverage of employees

both in India and abroad. The reliability and validity of all seven variables was established by

adopting the customary norms used to determine the psychometric property of a variable. Our

search for the critical predictors of employee engagement includes both personal as well as

situational factors. Last but not the least; rigorous statistical methods were employed for

analysing the primary data generated by the study for drawing conclusions.

References

Agrawal, S., & Ojha, R. P. (2016), “Employee engagement in new business horizon,”

(Article in Press).

Agrawal, S. (2015), “Predictors of employee engagement: A public sector unit

experience”, Strategic HR Review, 14(1/2), pp. 57-68.

Brown, S. P. (1996), “A meta analysis and review of organizational research on job

involvement,” Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), pp. 235–255.

Crabtree, (2013), Worldwide, 13% of employees are engaged at work, available at

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165269/worldwide-employees-engaged-work.aspx accessed

on 21 January 2016.

Eddy, S. W., Schweitzer, L., & Lyons, S. T. (2010). New generation, great expectations:

A fieldstudy of the millennial generation. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, pp.

281-292.

Frank, F. D., Finnegan, R. P., & Taylor, C. R. (2004), “The race for talent: Retaining and

engaging workers in the 21st century”, Human Resource Planning, 27(3), pp. 12-25.

Gilbert, J. (2011), “The Millennials: A new generation of employees: A new set of

engagement policies,” Ivey Business Journal.

Gursoy, D., Maier, T. A., & Chi, C. G. (2008), “Generational differences: An

examination ofwork values and generational gaps in the hospitality

workforce”,International Journal ofHospitality Management, 27, pp. 448-458.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. and Hayes, T.L. (2002), “Business-unit level relationship

betweenemployee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-

analysis”,Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, pp. 268-79.

Hofstede, G., (1997),Culture and Organisation: Software of the Mind,

InterculturalCooperation and its Importance for Survival. London: Harpercollins

Business.

Hui, C., Wong, A., & Tjosvold, D. (2007), “Turnover intention and performance in

China: The role of positive affectivity, Chinese values, perceived organizational support

and constructive controversy”,Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,

80(4), pp. 735-751.

Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement

anddisengagement atwork”, Academy of Management Journal, 33, pp. 692-724.

Little, B., & Little, P. (2006), “Employee engagement: Conceptual issues”, Journal of

Organizational Culture, Communication, and Concept, 10(1), pp. 111-120.

Locke, E.A., & Taylor, M. S. (1990), Stress, coping, and the meaning of work in Brief,

A.and W.R. Nord (Eds) Meanings of Occupational Work, pp135-170. Lexington,

LexingtonBooks.

Maslach, C., Leiter, M .P. (1997), The truth about burnout. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,

CA.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”,Annual Revue

Psychology, 52, pp. 397-422.

McConnell (2011), “Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction,

employee engagement, and business outcomes: A metaanalysis”, Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87(2), pp. 268-279.

Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement,”

Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, pp. 3-30.

Martin, C. A. (2005), “From high maintenance to high productivity what managers need

to know about Generation Y”, Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(1), pp. 39-44.

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004), “The psychological conditions of

meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work”,

Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology, 77, pp. 11-37.

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory Research, and

Application, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Myers, K., & Sadaghiani, K. (2010), “Millenials in the workplace: A communication

perspectiveon millennial‟s organizational relationships and performance”,Journal of

Business Psychology,25, pp. 225-238.

Paullay, I., Alliger, G., & Stone-Romero, E. (1994), “Construct validation of two

instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality,” Journal of

Applied Psychology, 79, pp. 224-8.

Robinson, I. (2006), Human Resource Management in Organisations. London, CIPD.

Rothbard, N. (1999), „Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work

andfamily‟. Dissertation Abstracts International US: University Microfilms

International, 59 (10-A).

Saks, A.M. (2006) „Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement‟, Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21(6), pp. 600-619.

Schaufeli, W.B., & Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their

relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”,Journal of

Organisational Behaviour, 25, pp. 293-315.

Shih, W., & Allen, M. (2007), “Working with generation-D: Adopting and adapting to

cultural learning andChange”, Library Management, 28(1/2), pp. 89-100.

Smola, K. W., & Sutton, C. D. (2002), “Generational differences: Revisiting generational

workvalues for the new millennium”,Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, pp. 363-

382.

Sonnentag, S. (2003), „Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behaviour: A new

look at the interface between non-work and work”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,

pp. 518-28.

The Gallup Organisation (2004) [online] Available at: www.gallup.com. Accessed 28th

June 2007.

Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonza´lez-Roma´, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002), “The

measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor Analytic

approach”, Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, pp. 71-92.

Shaw, S., & Fairhurst, D. (2008), “Engaging a new generation of graduates”, Education

_Training, 50(5), pp. 366-378.

Truss, C., Soane, E., Edwards, C., Wisdom, K., Croll, A., & Burnett, J. (2006) Working

Life:Employee Attitudes and Engagement 2006. London, CIPD.

Wellins, R., & Concelman, J. (2005), “Creating a culture for engagement”, Workforce

Performance Solutions (www.WPSmag.com).

West, M. A. (2012), Effective teamwork: Practical lessons from organizational research,

IIIrd Edition, The Work Foundation, BPS Blackwell, London.

Weyland, A. (2011), "Engagement and talent management of Gen Y", Industrial and

Commercial Training, Vol. 43(7), pp.439- 445.