93

This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php

Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Rinku Sanjeev and Anita Singh, 2013
EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN A PUBLIC SECTOR
UNDERTAKING: AN INVESTIGATION
Anita Singh
1
and Rinku Sanjeev
1
*
In a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), things are more complex as compared to any other
organization. In a PSU working system, doing the right thing is not enough. You are also required
to justify that you have done the right thing. There are some differences like (a) tolerance for low
performance is more in a PSU; (b) annual increase in salary is guaranteed through DA and
annual increment system, whereas in any other organization it is purely linked with performance;
and (c) differential compensation between senior and junior level in private sector is much more
as compared to a PSU. In this kind of work culture, employee engagement leads to better
performance of individual employee and higher growth of the organization. The emphasis of this
paper is to identify the factors impacting employee engagement in a PSU and also to understand
the measures to be taken to engage employees for better performance.
Keywords: Employee engagement, Factors, Measures, PSU
*Corresponding Author: Rinku Sanjeev, drrinkusanjeev@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
The nature of work is changing because of
economic recession, where the corporate are
suffering from tough financial strain, and the
workforce has to negotiate a considerable amount
of change, employee engagement approaches
can help companies and organizations to deal
with the challenges of recession by establishing
trust, and managing knowledge of individual
employees. In the public sector as in the private,
are raising questions about how organizations will
meet their talent needs in the years to come. New
directions from government, an economic
disruption and a change of administration, are
*
Institute of Management Studies (IMS), C 238 Bulandshahr Road Industrial Area, Lal Quan, GT Road, Ghaziabad 201 009.
Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013
ISSN 2319-345X www.ijmrbs.com
Vol. 2, No. 2, April 2013
2013 IJMRBS. All Rights Reserved
now requiring the public sector to assume new
roles and responsibilities even as a talent and
employment crisis l ooms. Technologi cal
innovation continues to impact the public sector
workplace as much as it does the private. In the
face of remarkable change, the public sector
must find new ways of managing its workforce to
enhance engagement, productivity and high
performance.
In general, the employees from public sector
are more satisfied with their job characteristics,
but are significantly less satisfied with key drivers
of employee engagement compared to the private
sector. Several literature reviewed tends to
94
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php
Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Rinku Sanjeev and Anita Singh, 2013
highlight the relatively strong performance of the
public sector in terms of job specific parameters
such as public sector workers are more likely to
receive compensation for working extra hours,
and find their work more worthwhile and personally
meaningful but their performance is weaker in
establishing strategic vision and management.
The challenge for employers is to understand
the importance of employee engagement within
their own organization and to address it
effectively.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Employee Engagement Conceptual
Foundation
The concept of employee engagement is relatively
new for HRM and appeared in the literatures for
nearly two decades (Rafferty, Maben, West and
Robinson, 2005; Melcrum Publishing, 2005; and
Ellis and Sorensen, 2007).
As per the work of Kahn (1990) and (1992),
employee engagement is different from the other
employee role constructs such as job involvement
(Lawller and Hall, 1970; and Lodahl and Kejner,
1965), commitment to organizatios (Mowday et
al., 1982), or intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1975).
Further Kahn (1990) suggests that employee
engagement focusses on how the psychological
experiences of work and work contexts shapes
the process of people presenting and absenting
themselves during task perf ormances.
Employees can be emotionally, cognitively, or
physically engaged. Employees can be engaged
on one dimension and not the other. The
construct, employee engagement emanates from
two concepts t hat have won academic
recognition and have been the subjects of
empirical researchCommitment and
Organizational Citizen Behavior (OCB) (Robinson
et al., 2004; and Rafferty et al., 2005). Employee
engagement has similarities and overlaps with
the above two concepts. According to a research
st udy, Engagement is about creati ng
opportunities for employees to connect with their
colleagues, managers and wider organization. It
is also about creating an environment where
employees are motivated to want to connect with
their work and really care about doing a good job
It is a concept that places flexibility, change and
continuous improvement at the heart of what it
means to be an employee and an employer in a
21
st
century workplace (CIPD, 2006).
Engagement is about passion and commit-
ment the willingness to invest oneself and expand
ones discretionary effort to help the employer
succeed, which is beyond simple satisfaction with
the employment arrangement or basic loyalty to
the employer (Blessing White Report, 2008;
Erickson, 2005; and Macey and Schnieder, 2008).
Gal lup consultants def i ne employee
engagement as the involvement with and
enthusiasm for work. Gallup (2006) proposed that
employees could be divided into three types with
regard to their level of engagement, the engaged,
notengaged and the actively disengaged, with the
later being of most concern to the employer brand
as a result of sharing their discontent with their
coworkers and the wider world (see Figure 1).
The three types of employees are:
1. Engaged employees work with passion and
feel a profound connection to their company.
They drive innovati on and move the
organization forward.
2 Not engaged employees are essentially
checked out. Theyre sleepwalking through
their workday, putting timebut not energy
or passioninto their work.
95
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php
Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Rinku Sanjeev and Anita Singh, 2013
3. Actively disengaged employees arent just
unhappy at work; theyre busy acting out their
unhappiness. Every day, these workers
undermine what their engaged co-workers
accomplish.
Satisfaction, Engagement and
Organizational Performance
Some def initions and measures equate
engagement with employee satisfaction (e.g.,
Blessing White, 2008; and Harteret al., 2002).
However, many suggest engagement is broader
than, in some cases distinct from, satisfaction
(e.g., BT, 2008; Blizzard, 2004; and Bates, 2004).
Satisfaction is often not directly related to
performance and business outcomes, whilst
engagement can predict satisfaction and other
business outcomes (Bizzard, 2004). These
findings are supported by many researchers who
claim that satisfaction occurs at approximately
the same levels regardless of whether the
company is high or low perf ormi ng and
employees can be satisfied in companies that
perform poorly, suggesting no relationship exists
bet ween sat isf action and perf ormance.
Researcher suggests that engagement, not
satisfaction, is a strong predictor of organizational
performance.
Macey and Schneider (2008a) similarly
indicate that although someone may be satisfied
with their job, this does not necessarily mean they
are engaged. Indeed, Frese (2008) goes a step
further to argue that engagement often occurs in
situations other than where one is satisfied with
their work, such as when imminent deadlines and
time pressures require an individual to work.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Many international research and consulting firms
such as Hewitt Associat es, Gall up has
undertaken researches on engagement in Indian
firms. It is an observable fact that the big
corporations of private sector and a few public
sector corporat ions such as Indian Oil
Corporation (IOC), Oil and Natural Gas
Commission (ONGC) are conducting this type
of study with the help of international consulting
and research organization for taking corrective
actions in the human-manageri al and
organizational fronts. Needless to say, research
on engagement in other public sector such as
Figure 1: The Three Types of Employees
Source: Gallup (2006).
96
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php
Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Rinku Sanjeev and Anita Singh, 2013
heavy engineering and heavy industry sectors
organizations found scanty, and the researcher
even unable to cite any evidence on these sectors
at the start of the study. Ipsos Mori (2006) has
highlighted the need f or public sector
organizations to improve the way in which they
manage change and develop leadership
capability.
The main focus of this study was to identify
the factors of employee engagement and also to
examine the relationship between employee
engagement and performance in the PSU.
METHODOLOGY
The study is exploratory and analytical in nature.
The primary data has been collected from the
corporate office of a single PSU located in New
Delhi. The PSU is a navaratnaand offers services
in power sector. It employs over 5,000 employees
all over India. The questionnaire was personally
administered to the managers working there and
a total of 200 responses were obtained. The
Gallops questionnaire has been used for this
study. A total of 12 statements scaled on a 5-pont
Likert scale has been employed to collect primary
data from the managers in the corporate office.
The responses have been obtained from the
managers in different areas of management as
the purpose was to identify which factor fosters
employee engagement in the organization.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
An EFA was undertaken to extract the factors that
fosters employee engagement in the PSU. The
calculated Cronbach alpha 0.649 for 12-item
scale shows that the observations are reliable
for exploratory study (refer Table 1). The KMO at
0.651 also shows that sample is adequate for
data reduction (refer Table 2). The method of
Principal Component analysis could extract 5
factors with eigenvalue 1 and above accounting
for 62.08 of variation. The initial factor matrix
rotated using Varimax rotation with 7 iterations
(refer Tables 3, 4 and 5). This implies that 5 factors
extracted may be correlated. This is quite likely
as the data has been collected from a single PSU;
it implies that these factors impact each other
and are not unidimensional in nature. The five
factors (refer Table 6) extracted are as follows:
Factor1: Encouragement and Meaningful
Task
In this study it is observed that the first and most
important f actor f or the enhancement of
performance and engagement of the employee
in this organization is encouragement and
meaningful task. Employees are motivated to
perform when they are appreciated and identified
for their task.
Factor 2: Recognition and Support
This study shows that in this PSU, the second
important factor for employee engagement is
recognition and support. Employees are
motivated to perform when they are appreciated
for their good work and are ready to perform when
Table1: Reliability Statistics
Cronbachs Alpha No. of Items
0. 649 1 2
Table 2: KMO and Bartletts Test
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy 0.651
Bartletts Test of Sphericity approx. Chi-square 286. 867
df 6 6
Sig. 0. 000
97
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php
Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Rinku Sanjeev and Anita Singh, 2013
Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative Total % of Cumulative
Variance % Variance % Variance %
1 2. 560 21.330 21.330 2. 560 21.330 21.330 1.742 14.521 14.521
2 1.481 12. 344 33.675 1.481 12. 344 33.675 1. 579 13.156 27.676
3 1. 296 10.802 44.476 1. 296 10.802 44.476 1.474 12. 285 39. 962
4 1.106 9.221 53. 697 1.106 9.221 53. 697 1. 354 11.284 51.246
5 1. 006 8. 383 62. 080 1. 006 8. 383 62. 080 1. 300 10.834 62. 080
6 0. 840 7.003 69. 083
7 0. 788 6. 570 75. 653
8 0.710 5.916 81.569
9 0. 695 5. 793 87.361
10 0. 564 4. 702 92. 064
11 0.501 4.172 96. 236
1 2 0. 452 3.764 100. 000
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Table 3: Total Variance Explained
Component 1 2 3 4 5
Oppor 0. 602
Recog 0. 587 0.432
Purpose 0.519
Opinion 0. 442
Encourage 0.564
Care 0.512 0.524
Quality 0. 623
Bestfriend 0.451 0. 586
Progress 0. 625
Matequip 0. 453 0. 456 0.504
Learngrow 0.449 0. 463
Expect 0.512 0. 607
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis; 5 components extracted.
Table 4: Component Matrix
98
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php
Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Rinku Sanjeev and Anita Singh, 2013
Component 1 2 3 4 5
Care 0.714
Encourage 0. 685
Purpose 0.631
Recog 0. 738
Matequip 0. 728
Opinion 0. 424 0.527
Bestfriend 0. 787
Quality 0. 734
Progress 0.810
Oppor 0.616
Expect 0.781
Learngrow 0. 455 0.701
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization; a. Rotation converged in 7
iterations.
Table 5: Rotated Component Matrix
a
Statements Factor Name Factor Loading
Table 6: Factor Matrix
My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.
There is someone at work who encourages me for development.
The mission or purpose of my company makes me feel my job is important.
In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.
I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.
At work my opinions seem to count.
My associates and peers committed to doing quality work.
I have a best friend at work.
Someone at work talked to you about your progress from the last six month.
At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.
I know what is expected of me at work.
This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.
Encouragement and
Meaningful task
Recognition and Support
Motivation and
Cooperation
Feed back and
Opportunity
Career development
and Growth
0.714
0. 685
0.631
0. 738
0. 728
0.527
0. 734
0. 787
0.810
0.616
0.781
0.701
there is support from the superiors to showcase
their skills. They are encouraged to take initiative
when they are provided with material and
equipment required to perform.
Factor 3: Motivation and Cooperation
It is identified that employees are committed to
perform when they are provided with friendly work
culture. They are motivated to perform when
99
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php
Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Rinku Sanjeev and Anita Singh, 2013
associates and peers are involved in quality work.
Factor 4: Feedback and Opportunity
It is observed that in this organisation one of the
factor which is required for the engagement of
the employees are opportunities to learn and they
also like to discuss and be informed about their
performance.
Factor 5: Career Development and Growth
This factor indicates that employees can be
engaged in the organization for longer period only
when they are clear about their goals and roles.
They are ready to face challenges where there is
opportunity to learn and grow.
CONCLUSION
It has been observed that one cannot attract,
retain and engage employees by giving higher
salaries only. There are other important factors
also like job content, recognition, encouragement,
cooperation, development opportunities, scope
for career growth, which play a very important
role in employees engagement. HRs role in this
PSU is to see how to connect employees to the
organisation and the jobs. Measures should
be taken to create an engaged culture and one
has to see if an employee is happy to go to office,
enjoy the work, colleagues, boss and environment
because these factors act like glue and bind the
people with the organization.
LIMITATION AND FUTURE SCOPE
The most valuable contribution of this study is
that it provides guide for future research; it will
aid in developing a more comprehensive context
to assess employee engagement in a public
sector undertaking. The collection of primary data
from a single corporate office is an important
limitation of this study. The results of the study
cannot be generalised.
REFERENCES
1. Bates S (2004), Getting Engaged, HR
Magazine, Vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 44-51
2. Blessing White (2008), The Employee
Engagement Equation in India, Presented
by Blessing White and HR Anexi [Online]
Available: www.blessingwhite.com (November
15, 2008)
3. Blizzard R (2004), Engagement vs.
Satisfaction Among Hospital Teams, Gallup
Pol l Tuesday Brief i ng, The Gal lup
Organisation, March 9.
4. BT (2008), Employee Engagement,
www.btplc.com/Societyandenvironment/
Our appr oach/ Sust ai nabi l i t yr epor t /
sect i on. aspx?sect i onId=29A70D7A
BD694A24BA54C1BBA56CE841
5. Chartered Institute of Personnel and
Development (2006), Reflections on
employee Engagement: Change agenda.
CIPD: London [Online] Available: http://
www. c i pd. c o . uk / c h angeage ndas
(November10, 2008).
6. Desi E L (1975), Intrinsic Motivation,
Pleenum Press, New York.
7. El lis C M and Sorensen A (2007),
Assessing Employee Engagement: The
Key to Improving Productivity Perspectives,
Vol .15, No. 1 The Segal Group, Inc.
8. Erickson T J (2005), Testimony Submitted
Before the US Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labour and Pensions,
May 26.
9. Frese M (2008), The Word Is Out: We Need
An Active Performance Concept for Modern
Workplaces, Industrial and Organisational
Psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 67-69
100
This article can be downloaded from http://www.ijmrbs.com/currentissue.php
Int. J. Mgmt Res. & Bus. Strat. 2013 Rinku Sanjeev and Anita Singh, 2013
10. Gallup (2006), Gallup Study: Engaged
Employees Inspire Company Innovation:
National Survey Finds that Passionate
Workers Are Most Likel y To Dri ve
Organizations Forward, The Gallup
Management Journal, http://gmj.gallup.
com/content/24880/GallupStudyEngaged
Employees InspireCompany.aspx
11. Harter J K, Schmidt F L and Hayes T L
(2002), Business-Unit Level Relationship
Between Employee Satisfaction, Employee
Engagement, And Business Outcomes: A
Meta-anal ysis, Journal of Appli ed
Psychology, Vol. 87, pp. 268-279.
12. Ipsos Mori (2008), Employee Relationship
Management Employee Engagement,
www.ipsosmori.com/researchspecialisms/
loyalty/youremployees/engagement.
13. Kahn W A (1990),Pshycological Conditions
of Personal Engagement and Disengagement
at Work, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 33, pp. 692-724.
14. Kahn W A (1992), To be Fully There:
Pshycological Presence at Work, Human
Relations, Vol. 54, pp. 305-12.
15. Lawler E E and Hall D T (1970),
Relationship of Job Characteristics to Job
Involvement, Satisfaction, and Intrinsic
Motivation, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 49, pp. 24-33.
16. Macey W H, Schneider B (2008a), The
Meaning of Employee Engagement,
Industrial and Organisational Psychology,
Vol. 1, pp. 3-30
17. Melcrum publishing. (2005), Employee
Engagement : How to Bui ld a High-
performance Workforce, An Independent
Melcrum Research Report Executive
Summary.
18. Mowday R T, Porter L M and Steers RM
(1982), Employee-Organization Linkages,
Academic Press, New York.