08 - Chapter 5

CHAPTER – V
DATA ANALYSIS
5.1. INTRODUCTION:
The research study is analyzed by collecting data on employee engagement

drivers and productivity which already exist in the startups at IT services, education,
and health care, and life science. And this research will helps for managers in the
startups to design suitable policies and activities to increase the employee engagement
which can drive productivity of employee and the organization.
This chapter explores the description of the demographic data regarding which
data was collected to design objectives and hypothesis for the study. This chapter
explains the objective based data analysis and its interpretation. Consequently, data
analysis is carried out through various statistical techniques such as Reliability Test,
descriptive statistics (frequencies, mean value, SD value, skewness, and kurtosis),
exploratory factor analysis, regression (multiple and simple regression) test. Finally,
the chapter discusses the results of the hypotheses.
5.2. ANALYSIS:
5.2.1. Reliability Results:
Reliability was described because of the volume to which a questionnaire,

observation methods, testing tools, or any method for measuring the same effects on
repetitive trails. In short, reliability or consistency is considered basis of rankings over
time.[1]. This understood that reliability relates to rankings and not for respondents. As
a consequence, within the studies, its miles never stated that someone turned into
reliable. This is a tool for finding the reliability of considered variable’s rating and the
level of ranking scale indicates reliability of responses on a research survey could live
equal over time is likewise signal of the reliability.
There are numerous techniques were used to measuring the reliability. A

number of those consist of taking a test-retest method, internal consistency method for
scaling, split-halves approach, and equivalent forms. An internal consistency
approach has most chosen method to find the degree reliability due to the fact it's
miles best in studies and may be achieved with single management. This approach is
taken into consideration for various sorts of reliability estimation. Internal consistency
was measured using reliability coefficient of cronbach’s alpha. cronbach’s coefficient
135
alpha was calculated for 61 variables from the data collected. The usual instruction for
explaining the internal consistency with help of cronbach’s alpha values is as follows
if the value of cronbach alpha is 0.09 it depicts that variables has a very high internal
consistency, 0.8 has a high internal consistency, 0.7 has moderate, 0.6 is doubtful , 0.5
is poor, and less than 0.5 is unacceptable.[2]
5.2.2. Scale Variables:
Table 5.1 : Case Processing Summary of all Variables
N Percentage
Valid 473 100.0
Cases Excludeda 0 0.0
Total 473 100.0
a. Listwise Deletion based on all variables in the procedure
Source: Primary data through questionnaire
5.2.3. Reliability Test Results of Dimension wise
Table 5.2 : Reliability Test Results of Dimension wise
Number of Cronbach’s
Dimension
Variables Alpha
Drivers of Employee Engagement 25 0.874
Level of Employee Engagement 15 0.731
Employee Engagement Models 6 0.582
Employee Productivity 7 0.790
Startup Productivity 8 .0.871
Total 61 0.915
Source: Primary data Trough Questionnaire
136
5.2.4. Guttman split-half Reliability Statistics:
Table: 5.3 : Guttman split-half Reliability
Value .934
Cronbach’s Alpha Part 1
Number of Items 31a
Value .860
Part 2
No of Items 30b
Total Number of Items 61
Correlation Between Forms .570
Equal Length .727

Spearman-Brown Coefficient
Unequal Length .727
Guttman split-half Coefficient .711
a. Total variables in Part 1
b. Total count of variables in part 2
The internal consistency among sixty one variables is measured and the
cronbach's alpha value is .915, this indicates the data is 91.5 percent reliable and
guttman split-half coefficient is identified as .711 and this data can be used for further
analysis.
5.3. DESCRIPTION OF DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:
The demographic data covers gender, age, name of the startup, type of
industry, and experience in present company, Income of the employee, and
designation level of employee (e.g. operational level, supervisor level and managerial
level) in startups. A descriptive summary of the demographic variables data was
analyzed based on the employee description of the chosen demographic variables are
as follows.
137
5.3.1. Responses Based on Gender:
Table 5.4 : Responses Based on Gender
Description Frequency Percentage
Male 294 62.2
Female 179 37.8
Total 473 100
Chart 1: Responses Based on Gender
Above table 5.4 showcased that the 62.2. Percent of the employees belong to
the male category and 37.8 percent of employees belong to the female category in
three industry sectors. From the above table it is evident that majority of the
employees are male.
138
5.3.2. Responses Based on Age:
Table 5.5 : Responses Based on Age
Description Frequency Percentage
< 20 2 0.4%
21 – 30 388 82%
31- 40 80 16.9%
41 – 50 3 0.6%
> 50 0 0
Total 473 100%
Chart 2: Responses Based on Age
Above table 5.5 discovered the age distribution of the respondents, 82%
percent of the employee's age comes under the age group of 21-30, 16.9 percent of
respondents are between of 31-40 age group.
139
5.3.3. Responses Based on Designation Level:
Table 5.6 : Responses Based on Designation Level
Nature of the job Frequency Percentage
Operational Level 401 85
Supervisor Level 48 10
Managerial Level 24 5
Total 473 100
Chart 3 : Responses Based on Designation Level of Employee
The above table 5.6 exhibited that the designation level of employees, 85
percent of the employees belonged to operational Level, 10 percent of the respondents
from the supervisor level, and the remaining 5 percent belonged to managerial level.
140
5.3.4. Responses Based on Name of the Startups:
Table 5.7 : Responses Based on Name of the Startups

Name of the startup Frequency Percentage
1. Blue Bery 20 4.2
2. Xoxoday Private Ltd 19 4.0
3. Softworks Consultancy Services Private Limited 23 4.9
4. Jambotail Technology Private Limited 19 4.0
5. Eseof Tech Solutions Pvt Ltd 20 4.2
6. Reckonsys Tech Laps Pvt Ltd 23 4.8
7. Rapid Info Solutions 22 4.6
8. Pqube Business Solutions 20 4.2
9. Proforte Global Consulting Pvt Ltd 17 3.6
10. 3 M Digital Networks Private Limited 17 3.6
11. Navabrind It Solutions Pvt Ltd 24 5.1
12. Ciphercup 21 4.4
13. R Labs Private Limited 21 4.4
14. Uniizen Technology Pvt 18 3.8
15. Neutrinos 19 4.0
16. 5ine Web Solutions Pvt Ltd 19 4.0
17. Gyanpro 18 3.8
18. Encertify Private Limited 22 4.7
19. Teachonapp.Com 19 4.0
20. Qtapultt Learning Solution Private Limited 17 3.6
21. Thinkfirst Education Pvt Ltd 24 5.1
22. Cyclops Medtech Private Limited 14 3.0
23. Atonarp Microsystem India Private Limited 18 3.8
24. FemuraPharamaceuticals Private Limited 20 4.2
Total 473 100
141
The table 5.7 inferred that employees from each startup, 4.2% of the
respondents belongs to Blueberry, 4 per cent employees from Xoxoday private
limited, 4.9% of the employee from softwork consultancy services private limited,
4.0 percent employees Jambotail Technology private limited, 4.2 percent from the
Eseof Tech Solutions Private limited, 4.8% of the respondents from Reckonsys Tech
Laps Private Limited, 4.6% from the Rapid info Solutions, 4.2% of the workers from
pqube business solutions, 3.6% of the respondents from Proforte Global Consulting
private limited, 3.6% from the 3 M Digital Networks Private limited, 5.1% of the
employees from Navabrind IT Solutions Private Limited, 4.4 percent from Ciphercup,
4.4 Percent from R Labs Privated Limited, 3.8% from Uniizen Technology Private
Limited, 4 percent from the neutrinos, 4% from the 5ine Web Solutions private
Limited, 3.8% of the Gyanpro in Education industry sector, 4.7 percent of the
employee from the Encertify Private Limited, 4% of the respondents from the
Teachonapp.com, data collected from3.6% of the employees at Qtapultt Learning
Solutions Private Limited, 5.1% from the Thinkfirst Education Private Limited, 3.0%
from Cyclops Medtech Private Limited, 3.8% from the Atonarp Microsystem India
Private Limited, 4.2% of the respondents from Femura Pharmaceuticals Private
Limited.
5.3.5. Responses Based on Industry:
Table 5.8 : Responses Based on Industry Sector
Industry Frequency Percentage
IT Services 321 67.9
Education 100 21.1
Healthcare and Life Science 52 11.0
Total 473 100
142
Chart 4 : Responses Based on the Industry Sector
Table 5.8 exhibited that 67.9 percent of respondents from IT Services, whereas
21.1 percent of Employees from Education, 11 percent of employees from the Health
and Life Science.
5.3.6. Responses Based on Experience in the Same Company:
Table 5.9 : Responses Based on Experience in the Same Company
Years of Experience Frequency Percentage
Below 1 Year 0 0
1.1 – 2 Years 364 77
2.1 – 3 Years 83 17.5
3.1 – 4 Years 23 4.8
Above 5 Years 3 0.6
Total 473 100
143
Chart 5 : Responses Based on Experience in the Same Company
The above table 5.9 described the respondents experience with the same
company, 77 percent of the employees have 1.1-2 Years of work experience, 17.5
percent of respondents have 2.1 – 3 Years of work experience, 4.8 percent of the
respondents have 3.1 – 4 Years of experience, and only 0.6 percent of the Employee
experience was above 5 Years in the present company. Through this researcher found
a majority of the employee Experience was between 1.1 to 2 years.
5.3.7. Responses Based on Income:
Table 5.10 : Responses Based on Income
Income of the employee Frequency Percentage
100000 -200000 151 32
200001 – 300000 170 36
300001 – 400000 118 25
400001 – 500000 24 5
Above 500001 10 2
Total 473 100
144
Chart 6 : Responses Based on Income
Above table 5.10 explored that 32 percent of employees are in the salary range
of Rs.100000 – Rs.200000, 36 percent respondents are in the salary range of
Rs.200001 – Rs.300000 and 25 percent of the respondents are with a salary ranging
from Rs.300001 – Rs.400000, 5 percent of the respondents are with a salary ranging
from Rs.400001 – Rs.500000, and the remaining 2 percent of the respondents are in
the salary range above Rs.500001.
5.4. DATA ANALYSIS WITH DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS:
The study was completed with 40 scale variables. Each of the scale variables
was prepared as per the Likert Five-point scale. The scale variables of the employee
engagement and level of employee engagement were calculated with the descriptive
statistics (mean, SD, skewness, and kurtosis) to check the data normality that were
collected. For the Normality test of the data, the analysis has considered standard
deviation to be < 1 and mean to be >3.4[3] and skewness and kurtosis to be +2 to -2[4].
If the test results fall between the ranges of +2 to -2, it indicates data can be normally
distributed. The construct-wise descriptive statistics variables are discussed below.
145
5.4.1. Descriptive Statistics for Employee Engagement Drivers Scale Variables:
Table 5.11 : Descriptive Statistics for Employee Engagement Drivers Scale

Variables
S.
Variable Min Max Mean SD Skewness Kurtosis
No
1 My organization has
clear health and safety 2 5 4.26 .657 -.640 .705
norms
2 I have considerable
freedom to choose my 2 5 3.95 .818 -.346 -.520
method of working
3 Communication in my
company is usually 2 5 4.07 .756 -.356 -.516
open and forthright
4 My company permits
me to balance my
2 5 4.09 .725 -.344 -.421
personal and
professional work.
5 My company is
arranged good physical
environment with 2 5 4.05 .730 -.344 -.317
(Seating, stress relief
programs)
6 Satisfied with the sick

leave policy and
1 5 3.89 .940 -1.157 1.868
insurance policy
(Health and safety)
7 Overtime salary and

1 5 3.98 .851 -.796 1.160
fringe benefits provided
8 Providing medical
1 5 3.83 1.066 -.975 .645
reimbursements
146
9 Compensations paid for
workers during layoffs /
during any accidents
1 5 3.90 .941 -1.162 1.868
occurring within the
company are
satisfactory
10 Identifying Training
needs for cross- 2 5 4.18 .772 -.706 .119
functional training
11 At work, I have Good

internal communication
with my manager, team 2 5 4.14 .760 -.414 -.644
members, and co-
workers
12 My manager provides
clear roles and
2 5 4.03 .749 -.356 -.339
information to perform
well
13 My manager doesn’t
Show the Favoritism
and my Ideas are
2 5 4.02 .789 -.349 -.560
respected by my
supervisor/ Treats me
with respect
14 I have the liberty to

discuss my training
programs; develop
needs with supervisors 2 5 4.11 .785 -.690 .209
and supporting me to
acquire skills about
advancement.
147
15 My manager talk to me
regularly to check my
performance and to
2 5 4.01 .664 -.189 -.176
share the feedback
timely and recognizing
my performance
16 There are well-designed

training and HRD
schemes to help me
build skills that help my
2 5 3.99 .781 -.548 .069
career growth and my
company frequently
identifying training
needs
17 Adequate opportunities
provided for
2 5 4.05 .711 -.222 -.568
professional growth by
giving special projects
18 Opportunities are given
to learn from the 2 5 4.04 .785 -.628 .167
mistakes
19 I got Recognition for
2 5 4.06 .695 -.238 -.428
my contribution at work
20 I have job rotation and
good promotional 2 5 3.89 .740 -.018 -.754
avenues
21 Providing Vacation
1 5 4.01 .744 -1.128 1.939
time
22 My company giving
skill variety of tasks at 2 5 4.05 .678 -.384 .247
the job
23 Providing comfortable
2 5 4.11 .698 -.760 1.192
working hours
148
24 My job is challenging
and it allows me to
2 5 3.85 .735 .215 -1.059
utilize my skills,
knowledge and abilities
25 My job is suitable for
qualification and it
2 5 4.16 .721 -.793 .961
offers opportunities for
growth
Drivers of employee engagement were measured by using 25 variables whose

mean values were in the range of 3.83 to 4.26, while corresponding standard
deviations have a range of 0.657 to 1.066. Values of skewness and kurtosis are
ranging between -1.162 and 0.215 and -1.059 to 1.939 respectively. The data of all the
25 variables of Employee Engagement drivers are showing normality.
Based on the mean and standard deviation values, the researcher found that
majority of the employee agreed that their company is adhering measures to keep
their employee health and safety. As per skewness values of the variables, this study
explored that my job is challenging and it allows me to utilize my skills, knowledge
and ability is showing high normality and kurtosis values the variable job objectives
are clear, focused is showing high normality.
From the above table mean value of all the variables above 3.5 in respective
startup companies and the all variable average mean value are 4, which means most of
the respondents agreed with all variables of the employee engagement drivers.
149
5.4.2. Descriptive Statistics for the Level of Employee Engagement Scale
Variables:
Table 5.12 : Descriptive Statistics for Level of Employee Engagement Scale

Variables
S.
No
1 I don’t think about other

things and all when I am 2 5 4.28 .659 -.683 .729
doing my work
2 I rarely get distracted at

1 5 4.05 .719 -1.318 1.528
work
3 I understand the impact

organizational decision 3 5 3.89 .686 .150 -.873
on my work.
4 I feel proud to work in

1 5 4.38 .739 -1.889 1.937
this company.
5 I concentrating to meet
2 5 4.37 .625 -.833 1.403
my targets in my job
6 In interested to work
overtime for company 2 5 4.15 .642 -.677 1.550
success
7 I feel that I am filled

2 5 4.18 .749 -.618 -.047
with energy
8 I put the best of the

2 5 4.28 .632 -.403 -.169
efforts at work
9 I work too hard

1 5 4.04 .759 -.512 .316
whenever needed
10 I stay until the job /

3 5 4.15 .692 -.208 -.913
project is done
150
11 I put my heart into my
3 5 4.27 .616 -.245 -.614
job
12 I would like to end my

career working for this 2 5 4.26 .637 -.339 -.439
company
13 Committed to give my
2 5 4.12 .648 -.215 -.281
best at work
14 I am being honest in my
3 5 4.09 .712 -.127 -1.021
job
15 I feel that workplace as

my house and I am
working with emotional 3 5 4.44 .601 -.568 -.596
attachment with my boss
and co-workers
Level of employee engagement variables was measured by using 15 variables

whose mean values are in the range of 3.89 to 4.44 while corresponding standard
deviations have a range of 0.601 to 0.759. Skewness and kurtosis values are in the
ranging from -1.889 to 0.150 and -1.021 to 6.237 respectively. The data of all the 15
variables of the level of employee engagement is showing normality.
As per the mean value, most of the employees feel that working place as their
house and emotionally working with my boss and co-workers. Based on the Skewness
value, the variable I understand the impact of organization decision on my job is
showing high normality and as per kurtosis value, the variable I feel proud to work in
this company is showing high normality.
Based on the mean value of all the variables are above 3.5 in respective startup
companies and the all variable average mean value is above 4, which means most of
the respondents agreed with all variables of the level of employee engagement.
151
5.4.3. Descriptive Statistics for Models of Employee Engagement Scale Variables:
Table 5.13 : Descriptive Statistics for Models of Employee engagement Scale

Variables
S.
No
1 Gallup’s Engagement
3 5 .644 -.063 -.886
Hierarchy 4.05
2 Three Dimensions to
4 5 4.01 .092 1.099 1.447
Employee Engagement
3 Aon Hewitt’s Model of

3 5 4.06 .693 -.088 -.915
Employee Engagement
4 Kahn Model of
3 5 4.26 .617 .239 -.610
Employee Engagement
5 Saks Antecedents and

Consequences of
2 5 4.26 .635 -.341 -.431
Employee Engagement
Model
6 Zinger model of
2 5 4.131 .644 -.176 -.437
Employee Engagement
As per the table 5.13, models of employee engagement in the startups were
measured by using 6 variables whose mean values were in the range of 4.01 to 4.26,
while corresponding standard deviations have a range of 0.092 to 0.693. Skewness
and kurtosis values are between -0.341 and 1.99 and -0.915 to 1.447 respectively. The
data of all the 6 variables of models of employee engagement are showing normality.
As per the mean value, the researcher found that the Saks antecedents and
consequences of employee engagement model is frequently used by the startups. As
per the skewness and kurtosis values, three dimensions to employee engagement are
showing high normality.
152
Based on the mean value of all the variables are above 4 in respective startup
the respondents agreed with all variables of the model of employee engagement.
5.4.4. Descriptive Statistics for Productivity Scale Variables:
Table 5.14 : Descriptive Statistics for Productivity Scale Variables
S.
No
1 Positive interpersonal
3 5 4.09 .714 -.141 -1.030
relationships
2 Creativity at work 2 5 4.26 .641 -.351 -.460
3 Taking initiation to do
2 5 4.131 .644 -.176 -.437
the work
4 Punctuality 3 5 4.108 .718 -.163 -1.050
5 Good Efficiency at work 3 5 4.12 .693 -.159 -.915
6 Meet the Targets 3 5 4.04 .539 .035 .439
7 Effective work with the

3 5 4.05 .688 .069 -.884
team
8 employees satisfaction 3 5 4.08 .687 -.105 -.879
9 Retention rate of the

3 5 4.06 .692 -.084 -.907
employee
10 Absenteeism of the
3 5 4.07 .609 -.033 .311
Employee
11 Competitive advantage 3 5 4.09 .711 -.129 -1.011
12 Financial Performance 3 5 4.09 .706 -.124 -.989
13 Growth rate of the

3 5 4.049 .571 .006 .064
Startup
14 Profit of the Startup 3 5 4.12 .657 -.136 -.703
15 Startup Reputation 3 5 4.12 .693 -.159 -.915
153
The above table describing productivity in the startups were measured by
using 15 variables whose mean values were in the range of 4.04 to 4.26, while
corresponding standard deviations have a range of 0.539 to 0.718. Skewness and
kurtosis values are between -0.351 to .069 and -1.050 to .439 respectively. The data of
all the 15 variables of productivity of both employees and startups are showing
normality.
As per the mean value, the researcher found that majority of the employees
working with creativity in startups. As per the skewness value, effective work with
the team is showing high normality, and based on the kurtosis value employee meet
the targets is showing high normality.
Based on the mean value of all the variables are above 4in respective startup
the respondents agreed with all variables of the productivity in startups.
5.5. FACTORS COUPLED WITH THE VARIABLES:
Factor analysis is a testing tool to reduce the data; It supports in finding a

small number of factors that explore the variance is observed with a greater number of
evident variables. It tries to find the factors that describe the internal correlation in a
set of identified variables. This helps for detection among the identified variables as
well as helps for analyzing the critical factor which caused the maximum variation of
variables. Based on the rotated component matrix, factors were identified. And this
tool access to grouping the variables into one factor by using correlation values
among the variables.[5]
Based on of varimax rotations with Kaiser Normalization, all the variables

were extracted as a 5 factors. Every factor comprised all the variables that have a
factor loading greater than 0.5. The data reduction technique has reduced the total of
25 variables to 24 variables into 5 factors. The contribution of these 5 extracted
factors is observed to be 60.696 percent of the variability. Growth and development
opportunities, working environment, compensation and benefits, quality of life, and
Nature of the job are the most prominent causative factors to influence employee
opinion towards employee engagement practices of start-ups in Bangalore city.
154
5.5.1. Factors Contributing to Employees Opinion on Drivers of Employee
Engagement in Start-ups:
5.5.1.1. KMO and Bartlett’s Test:
The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) determines sampling adequacy, it signifies

the ratio of the squared correlation among variables to the squared partial correlation
between variables. Its values between 0 and 1, which value close to 1 represents that
patterns correlations are relatively compact and should yield distinct and reliable
factors.[6]
Table 5.15 : Test of KMO and Bartlett of Employee Engagement Drivers
KMO Measure of Sampling Adequacy .903
Approx. Chi-Square 5889.800
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Df 300
Sig. .000
Before scheduling for factor analysis, the eligibility of the data has to be tested
by conducting KMO - Bartlett‘s test. Sampling adequacy and multivariate normality
among variables determined through this test. In this study, the value KMO was 0.903
> 0.5 which represents that the taken sample was highly adequate.[7]The value of
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity was 0.000 < 0.05, indicated multivariate normality among
variables. Consequently, Factor Analysis was considered as a suitable tool for further
data analysis.
5.5.1.2. Eigen Value:
The components represent serial numbers of identified variables used in factor

analysis. However, not all 25 variables will be retained. In this study, only the 5
factors were extracted with set the relevant variables. The eigen values indicated the
identified factors variance. The first column enclosed the total variables eigen value.
The first factor will always identify based on the most variance value with the highest
eigen values of the variables. The next factor will find for as much of the available
variance as it can and the same will go on with till the last factor. The percentage of
variance indicates the percent of total variance values described by each factor and the
155
cumulative percentage represents the cumulative percentage of variance explained by
the present and the preceding factors. In this research, the initial 5 factors explained
with 60.696 percent of the variance. The distribution of the variance after the varimax
rotation with Kaiser Normalization was explained as per the results of the rotation
sums of the squared loading value. The varimax rotation attempts to improve the
variance of every factor.
156
Table 5.16 : Total Variance of Employees Opinion on Employee Engagement Drivers
Initial Eigen values Extraction sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative %
1 9.362 37.449 37.449 9.362 37.449 37.449 3.671 14.684 14.684
2 1.807 7.230 44.679 1.807 7.230 44.679 3.637 14.549 29.233
3 1.453 5.812 50.491 1.453 5.812 50.491 3.606 14.425 43.659
4 1.385 5.541 56.032 1.385 5.541 56.032 2.455 9.819 53.477
5 1.166 4.664 60.696 1.166 4.664 60.696 1.805 7.219 60.696
6 .968 3.872 64.568
7 .941 3.764 68.332
8 .813 3.250 71.582
9 .752 3.008 74.590
10 .632 2.528 77.117
11 .598 2.390 79.507
12 .557 2.228 81.735
13 .542 2.168 83.904
14 .529 2.115 86.019
157
15 .489 1.956 87.975
16 .411 1.644 89.619
17 .385 1.542 91.160
18 .359 1.434 92.595
19 .320 1.282 93.877
20 .309 1.235 95.111
21 .293 1.171 96.282
22 .281 1.125 97.407
23 .246 .985 98.391
24 .219 .877 99.268
25 .183 .732 100.000
Extraction Method: Principle Component factor Analysis
a. 5 Factors Extracted
158
Based on varimax Rotation with Kaiser Normalization summary, 5 factors
were extracted. Each factor was comprised of all those variables which had a value of
factor loadings higher than 0.5. 25 variables were associated into 5 factors. All
variables were extracted into 5 factors in the study. These 5 extracted factors
explained with 60.696 percent of the variability in employee engagement drivers in
Startups. Hence, those factors were the most essential contributory influencing the
opinion of employees on drivers of employee engagement in startups from three
industry sectors concerning Bangalore.
5.5.1.3. Rotated Components Matrix:
This Matrix indicated the rotated factor loadings, which are having correlation
between variables and factors. The factor column represents the rotated factors that
have been extracted out of the total factor. These are the core factors, which have
been used as the final factor after data reduction.
Table 5.17 : Rotated Component Matrix of Employee Engagement Drivers
Variable Component
Variables
Number 1 2 3 4 5
Adequate opportunities are

V17 provided for professional growth .782 -.406 .498 .213 .292
by giving special projects
There are well-designed training

and HRD schemes to help me
build skills that help my career
V16 .701 -.412 .303 .326 -.161
growth and my company
frequently identifying training
needs
Identifying Training needs for

V10 .664 .188 .223 .263 .071
cross-functional training
Opportunities are given to learn

V18 .629 .233 .362 -.102 -155
from the mistakes
159
My manager talks to me regularly
to check my performance and to
V15 .628 -.232 .110 .427 .232
share the feedback timely and
recognizing my performance
Provides comfortable working

V23 .117 .753 .306 .125 .249
hour
My job is suitable for

V25 qualification and it offers .110 .693 .206 .121 .331
opportunities for growth
My manager doesn’t Show the

Favoritism and my Ideas are
V13 .336 .569 .297 .264 -.107
respected by my supervisor/
Treats me with respect
My manager provides clear roles

V12 .261 .564 .203 .305 .183
and information to perform well
I have the liberty to discuss my

training & development
V14 needs with supervisor and .402 .556 .250 .196 .276
supporting me to acquire skills
about advancement.
My organization has clear health

V1 .490 .551 .361 .221 -.118
and safety norms
At work, I have Good internal

V11 communication with my manager, .495 .526 .217 .182 -.163
team members, and co-workers
Compensations paid for workers

during layoffs / During any
V9 .621 .222 .768 -.139 .290
accidents occurring within the
company are satisfactory
Satisfied with the sick leave

V6 policy and insurance policy .247 .278 .693 -.164 .146
(Health and safety)
160
At the workplace, provides
several equal learning
V19 .344 .155 .679 -.159 .110
opportunities for career
advancement
Job Objectives are clear and

V21 .125 .139 .664 -.379 .335
focused
Overtime Salary and Fringe

V7 .232 .121 .607 -.333 .305
benefits provided by the Start-up
Amount of health care paid and

V8 .314 .256 .561 -.363 .436
vacation is sufficient
My company is liberal and permit

V5 .365 .245 .321 .741 .401
me for family(personal) works
My company offers stress-

V4 .342 .269 .105 .644 .240
reducing activities
I have Considerable freedom to

V2 .236 .156 .153 .525 .105
choose my way of working
Autonomy to make decisions at

V22 work moreover myself .412 .124 .130 -.238 .694
accountable for the outcome.
I have job rotation and good

V20 .237 .113 .233 .326 .543
promotional avenues
My Job is Challenging and it

allows me to utilize my skills,
V24 .371 -329 -404 .384 .202
knowledge, and abilities at
workplace
Extraction Method: PCA
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 14 iterations.
Source: Primary Data Through Questionnaire
161
From the table 5.17, factors were found based on loading values in the 5.17
table of Rotated Component Matrix. And five factors identified with 24 variables
which were greater than .5 and one variable were removed which was less than .5
factor loading value.
5.5.1.4. The Naming of the Factors from Rotated Component Matrix of

Employee Engagement Drivers:
Table 5.18 : Naming of Employee Engagement Drivers
Factor
Factor Variable
Variable Covered Loading Factor Name
Number Number
Values
V17 Adequate opportunities provided

for professional growth by giving .782
special projects
V16 There are well-designed training

and HRD schemes to help me
build skills that help my career Growth and
.701
growth and my company Development
frequently identifying training Opportunities
needs
1 (1999,
V10 Identifying Training needs for Gallups,
.664
cross-functional training 2015, Josh
V18 Opportunities are given to learn Bersin

.629
from the mistakes
V15 My manager talk to me regularly

to check my performance and to
.628
share the feedback timely and
recognizing my performance
V23 Providing comfortable working Working

2 .753
hours Environment
V25 My job is suitable for .693 (2012, Aon
162
qualification and it offers Hewitt )
opportunities for growth
V13 My manager doesn’t Show the

Favoritism and my Ideas are
.569
respected by my supervisor/
Treats me with respect
V12 My manager provides clear roles

.564
and information to perform well
V14 I have the liberty to discuss my

training programs; develop needs
with supervisors and supporting .556
me to acquire skills about
advancement.
V1 My organization has clear health

.551
and safety norms
V11 At work, I have good internal

communication with my manager, .526
team members, and co-workers
V9 Compensations paid for workers

during layoffs / During any
.768
accidents occurring within the
company are satisfactory
V6 Satisfied with the sick leave Compensation

3 policy and insurance policy .693 and benefits
(Health and safety)
(2012, Aon
V19 I got Recognition for my Hewitt)
.679
contribution at work
V21 Providing Vacation time .664
V7 Overtime Salary and Fringe

.607
benefits provided
163
V8 Providing Medical
.561
reimbursements
V5 My company is arranged good

physical environment with .741
Quality of
(Seating, stress relief programs)
Life (2007,
V4 My company permits me to Agarwala,
4
balance my personal and .644 Tanuja,
professional work. Mokaya et al
(2013)
V2 I have considerable freedom to
.525
choose my method of working
V22 My company giving skill variety Nature of the

.694
of tasks at the job Job (2007,
5 Agarwala,
V20
I have job rotation and good
.543 Tanuja, Kahn
promotional avenues
1992)
The above table presents five factors derived from exploratory factor analysis
and their percentage of variance.
Factor 1:
1. The first factor comprises five variables explains 14.684 percent of variance and
loaded quite well ranging from 0.782 (for Adequate opportunities are provided for
professional growth by giving special projects) and 0.628 (for my manager talk to
me on regular basis to check my performance and to share the feedback timely
and recognizing my performance). It is labeled as “Growth and Development
Opportunities”. Thus; it tends to suggest that Growth and Development
Opportunities are a deciding factor in drivers of Employee Engagement to
Engagement.
164
Figure 5.1 : Factor 1 - Variables in Growth and Development
Opportunities
Factor 2:
2. The second factor comprises seven variables that explain 14.549 percent variance
and loaded quite well ranging from 0.753 (for Provides comfortable working
hours) to 0.551 (for At work, I have Good internal communication with my
manager, team members, and co-workers) with the variables. The variables are
close to providing benefits to the employees at the Workplace, and so labeled as
“Working Environment”. This factor suggests that Working Environment is
essential to keep the Employees Engaged and to increase the level of Engagement.
165
Figure 5.2 : Factor 2 - Variables of Working Environment
Factor 3:
3. The third factor comprises six variables that explain 14.425 variances and loaded
quite well with the factor ranging from 0.768 (Compensations paid for workers
during layoffs / during any accidents occurring within the company are
satisfactory) to 0.561 (for Amount of health care paid and vacation is sufficient).
As those variables Related to the Compensations and benefits, so the factor is
labeled as "Compensations and benefits ".
Figure 5.3 : Factor 3 - Variables of Compensation and Benefits
166
Factor 4:
4. The fourth factor comprises three variables that explain 9.819 percent variance
and loaded quite well ranging from 0.741 (for My Company is liberal and
permit me for family (personal) works) to 0.525 (for I have Considerable
freedom to choose own way of working) with the variables. The variables are
related to the Quality of life, so labeled as “Quality of life”
Figure 5.4 : Factor 4 - Variables of Quality of Life
Factor 5:
5. The fifth factor comprises two variables explains 7.219 percent variance and
loaded quite well ranging from 0.694 (for Autonomy to make decisions in my
job moreover I am the accountable for the outcome of my work.) to 0.543 (for
I have job rotation and good promotional avenues) with the variables. The
variables are related to the nature of the job, and as labeled as “Nature of the
job”.
Figure 5.5 : Factor 5 - Variables of Nature of the Job
167
5.5.2. Factors Contributing to Employees Opinion on Productivity in Start-ups:
5.5.2.1. Test of KMO and Bartlett’s:
Table 5.19 : Test of KMO and Bartlett’s on Productivity
KMO of Sampling Adequacy. .894
Approx. Chi-Square 2830.465
Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Df 70
Sig. .000
Source: Primary Data through questionnaire
Before scheduling for factor analysis the eligibility of the data has to be
tested by conducting KMO-Bartlett‘s test. This test is determined the sampling
adequacy and multivariate normality among variables. In this study, the KMO value
was 0.894 > 0.5 which represents that the taken sample was adequate. The value of
Bartlett's Test was 0.000 < 0.05, indicated multivariate normality among variables.
Consequently, factor analysis was considered as a suitable tool for further data
analysis.
5.5.2.2. Eigen Values:
The initial components were indicated serial numbers of the identified

variables used in the factor analysis. However, not all variables were holed. In this
study, only the 2 factors were extracted with set the relevant variables. The eigen
values indicated the variances of identified factors. The first column contains the total
eigen value of all variables. The first factor will always identify based on the most
variance value with the highest eigen values of the variables. The next factor will find
for as much of the available variance as it can and the same will go on with till the last
factor. The percentage of variance indicates the percent of total variance values
described by each factor and the cumulative percentage represents the cumulative
percentage of variance explained by the present and the preceding factors. In this
research, the initial 2 factors explained with 46.422 percent of the variance. The
distribution of the variance after the varimax rotation with Kaiser Normalization was
explained as per the results of the rotation sums of the squared loading value. The
varimax rotation attempts to improve the variance of every factor.
168
Table 5.20 : Total Variance of Productivity in Startups
Initial Eigen values Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
Component % of
Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Total % of Variance Cumulative %
Cumulative
1 4.58 38.06 38.068 4.58 38.06 38.06 3.144 26.628 26.628
2 1.009 8.396 47.052 1.01 8.396 49.05 2.864 20.424 47.052
3 1.217 8.111 55.163
4 1.107 7.381 61.544
5 1.091 7.272 67.816
6 1.042 6.948 73.764
7 1.025 6.831 70.595
8 .969 6.459 81.054
9 .917 6.113 85.166
10 .903 6.021 89.187
11 .812 5.412 91.599
12 .788 5.256 93.855
13 .616 4.109 95.964
14 .605 4.036 98.434
15 .489 3.566 100.000
Extraction Method: Principle Component factor Analysis
b. 2 Factors Extracted
169
Based on Varimax Rotation with Kaiser Normalization summary, 2 factors
were extracted. Each factor was comprised of all those variables which had a value of
factor loadings greater than 0.5. 15 variables were clubbed into 2 factors. 2 factors
were extracted from the 15 variables used in the study. These 2 extracted factors
explained 47.052 percent of the variability in productivity in Startups. Hence, those
factors were the most essential contributory influencing the opinion of employees on
productivity in startups from three industry sectors at Bangalore city.
5.5.2.3. Rotated Component Matrix:
Table 5.21 : Rotated Component Matrix of Productivity in Startups
Variable Components
Variable
Number 1 2
V8 Employees satisfaction .748 .323
V10 Absenteeism of the Employee .676 .119
V9 The retention rate of the employee .668 .168
V11 Competitive advantage .634 .203
V15 Startup Reputation .618 -.112
V12 Financial Performance .604 .108
V14 Profit of the Startup .573 .184
V13 The growth rate of the Startup .545 .274
V4 Punctuality .108 .724
V3 Taking initiation to do the work .161 .710
V2 Creativity at work .156 .647
V1 Positive interpersonal relationships .351 .570
V6 Targets achievement .384 .564
V5 Good Efficiency at work .388 .551
V7 Effective work with the team .276 .543
Extraction Method:PCA.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 2 iterations.
Source: Primary Data through Questionnaire
170
From the above table 5.21, factors were identified based on the factor loading
values in the table of table. And two factors identified with 15 variables which were
greater than .5 factor loading value.
5.5.2.4. The Naming of the Factors from Rotated Component Matrix of

Employee Opinion on Productivity in Startups:
Table 5.22 : Factor Names and Factor Loadings of Employees’ Opinion on

Productivity
Factor Variable Loading Factor

Variable Covered
Number Number Value Name
V8 Employees satisfaction .748
V10 Absenteeism of the Employee .676
V9 The retention rate of the employee .668 Startup

Productivity
V11 Competitive advantage .634
1 [Heskett, J.
V15 Startup Reputation .618
L., et., al.
V12 Financial Performance .604 (1994)]
V14 Profit of the Startup .573
V13 The growth rate of the Startup .545
V4 Punctuality .724
V3 Taking initiation to do the work .710

Employee
V2 Creativity at work .647 Productivity
2 V1 Positive interpersonal relationships .570 [(Heskett, J.
V6 Targets achievement .564 L., et., al.
(1994))]
V5 Good Efficiency at work .551
V7 Effective work with the team .543
171
From the analysis, two factors were derived from exploratory factor analysis,
which are emerged as the most prominent factors of productivity. And this has
described the percentage of variance.
Factor 1:
The first factor comprises eight variables that explain 26.628 percent of
variance and loaded quite well ranging from 0.748 (Employees satisfaction) to 0.545
(Growth rate of the Startup). It is labeled as “Startup productivity”. Thus; it tends to
suggest that startup productivity is a deciding factor in Productivity.
Figure 5.6 : Factor 1 - Variables in startup Productivity
Factor 2:
The Second factor comprises seven variables that explain 20.424 percent
variance and loaded quite well ranging from 0.724 (Punctuality) to 0.543 (Effective
work with the team ) with the variables. The variables are close to the Productivity of
the employee at Startups, and so labeled as “Employee Productivity”.
172
Figure 5.7 : Factor 2 - Variables of Employee Productivity
5.6. MULTIPLE REGRESSION TEST RESULTS:
To allow the impact of independent variables on the level of employee

engagement, enter a method of multiple regressions was applied.
Figure 5.8: Multiple Regression Model
173
5.6.1. Model Summary for Employee Engagement Drivers on Level of Employee
Engagement:
The above table highlighted the results of regression between employee

engagement drivers (Growth and Development Opportunities, Working Environment,
Compensation and benefits, Quality of Life and Nature of the job) and level of
employee engagement. It discovers the R as a correlation coefficient and R2 as a
coefficient of determination. R2 indicates the simple Pearson’s coefficient and R2
indicates that the amount of variation in the dependent variable can be impacted by
the independent variables.
Table 5.23 : Employee Engagement Drivers on Level of Employee

Engagement Model Summary
Estimate the Std. Value of Durbin-

Model R R2 Adjusted R2
Error Watson
1 .702 .523 .522 .620 1.114
a. Predictors: (Constant), Growth and Development Opportunities, Working

Environment, Compensation and benefits, Quality of Life, and Nature of the job.
b. Dependent Variable: Level of Employee Engagement
The table 5.23 represents a performance model with the following statistics.
According to Hair the determinants coefficient level ranges from 0.25 which is
considered weak, 0.50 as moderate, and 0.75 is substantial.[8]
• R: R depicts multiple correlations values ranging between -1 and +1. So from

the above model with R-Values as 0.702 indicates that there is substantial
correlation between drivers of employee engagement and employee
engagement levels.
• R Square: R2 represents the coefficient of determination which lies between 0

and 1. Since the R square value is 0.523 i.e. 52.3 percent of the variation in the
level of employee engagement was explained by identified employee
engagement Drivers. It means these drivers were moderately impacted by the
174
level of Employee Engagement at selected startups among the top three
industry sectors.
• Durbin-Watson statistic: From the above table 5.23 the Durbin-Watson

statistic value is 1.114. It is closer to the standard value 2. So, the assumption
has almost certainly been met.
5.6.2. Variance of Employee Engagement Drivers on Level of Employee

Engagement:
Table 5.24 : ANOVA for Employee Engagement Drivers on Level of

Employee Engagement
Model Sum of Df Mean F Sig. (P

Squares Square Value)
Regression 55.566 5 11.113 81.640 .000b
1 Residual 63.571 467 .136
Total 119.137 472
a. Dependent Variable: Level of Employee Engagement
b. Predictors: (Constant): Growth and Development Opportunities, Working

Environment, Compensation and benefits, Quality of Life and Nature of the job
The ANOVA result shows the F statistics of the regression model is statically
significant at 0.05 levels (95% confidence interval). It represents whether this model
predicts the dependent variables statistically significant or not.
The above table described that this model identifies the dependent variables
(Level of Employee Engagement) significance well with the significant value was
.000 that is less than 0.05.
5.6.3. Regression- Coefficient- Impact of Employee Engagement Drivers on Level

of Employee Engagement:
The regression co-efficient explores the details parameters (Beta values) and
significant values of the variables. And coefficient value of unstandardized beta is the
measures the each variable contribution to the model.
175
Table 5.25 : Regression- Coefficient- Impact of Employee Engagement Drivers
on Level of Employee Engagement
Standardized
Unstandardized
Coefficients Sig.
Coefficients Standardized
Model Coefficients T (P
Standard Value)
B Beta
Error
Constant 1.652 .157 10.556 .000
Growth and Development

.096 .034 .117 2.784 .006
Opportunities
1 Working Environment .166 .041 .206 4.056 .000
Compensation and Benefits .067 .035 .095 1.906 .050
Quality of Life .221 .034 .279 6.517 .000
Nature of the Job .137 .030 .184 4.513 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Employee Engagement
In table 5.25, the strength of impact and its positive/negative direction

explored by standardized regression coefficients value. It is also contains the T and
significant values to validate the hypothesis framed to measure the significant impact
of employee engagement drivers on the level of employee engagement.
The multiple regression equation of this model is:
Y = 0.117X1 + 0.206X2 + 0.095X3 + 0.279X4 + 0.184X5 + 1.652
Level of Employee Engagement
• X1 = Growth and Development Opportunities
• X2 = Working Environment
• X3 = Compensation and Benefits
• X4 = Quality of Life
• X5 = Nature of the Job
176
5.6.3.1. Growth and Development Opportunities:
Table 5.25 shows Beta value as 0.117 which indicates that growth and
development opportunities positive impact on the level of employee engagement.
Since the T significance value is 2.784 and the significance value is 0.006 which is
less than 0.05, so the growth and development opportunities are significantly impact
on the level of employee engagement of employees in startups.
5.6.3.2. Working Environment:
Table 5.25 shows Beta value as 0.206 which indicates the positive impact of
the working environment on level of employee engagement. Since T significant value
is 4.056 and the significance value is 0.000 which is less than 0.05 hence working
environment had a significant impact on the level of employee engagement of
employees in the startups.
5.6.3.3. Compensation and Benefits:
Table 5.25 shows Beta value as 0.095 that indicates compensation and benefits
positively impact on level of employee engagement. Since the T value is 1.906 and
significance value is 0.050 which is equal 0.05 hence compensation and benefits
significantly impact on level of engagement of employees in startups.
5.6.3.4. Quality of Life:
Table 5.25 shows Beta value as 0.279 which indicates that quality of life was
positively impact on level of employee engagement. Since T value is 6.517 and the
significance value is 0.000 which is less than 0.05 hence the quality of life was
significantly impact on level of engagement of employees in startups.
5.6.3.5. Nature of the Job:
Table 5.25 shows Beta value as 0.184 that indicates that the nature of the job
was positively impact on level of employee engagement. Since T value is 4.513 and
the significance value is 0.000 which is less than 0.05 hence the nature of the job was
a significantly impact on the level of engagement of employees in startups.
The above table described that the quality of life practices was first positively
impacted on the level of employee engagement. Second, working Environment
activates were positively impact on the level of employee engagement. Third, the
177
Nature of the job positively impacts on the level of employee engagement. Fourth,
growth and development opportunities and fifth, compensation and benefits positively
impacted on the level of employee engagement.
5.6.4. Multiple Regression Result Summary:
The summary results impact: Multiple Regression is exhibited in underneath

table 5.26.
Table 5.26 : Results Summary of Employee Engagement Drivers on Level of

Employee Engagement
S. Drivers of Employee R Square

Sig. (P-value) Remark
No. Engagement value
Growth and Development

1 .000 Rejected
Opportunities
2 Working Environment .006 Rejected

0.523
3 Compensations and Benefits .000 Rejected
4 Quality of Life .050 Rejected
5 Nature of the Job .000 Rejected
According to this multiple regression summary, the research found that

identified drivers such as growth and development opportunities, working
environment, compensation and benefits, quality of life and nature of the job were
statistically significant and significantly impact on the level of employee engagement.
5.7. SIMPLE REGRESSION TEST RESULTS:
To analyze the impact of the independent variable on productivity as the

dependent variable, enter a method of simple regressions has been applied.
178
5.7.1. Level of Employee Engagement on Employee Productivity
5.7.1.1. Simple Regression-Model Summary:
Table 5.27 : Model summary for Level of Employee Engagement on Employee

Productivity
Estimate Standard Durbin-

Model R R2 Adjusted R2
Error Watson
1 .757 .753 .752 .961 1.033
a. Predictors: (Constant): Level of Employee Engagement
b. Dependent Variable: Employee Productivity
The regression table 5.27 summarizes the model performance through the
following statistics.
• R: this indicates the multiple correlations co-efficient with the range lies
between -1 and +1. Since the R-value is 0.757 means that there is a high
positive relationship between the level of employee engagement and employee
productivity in startups.
• R square: It represents the coefficient of determination which lies between 0

and 1. R2 value is 0.753 means 75.3 percent of the explained variation is there
in the productivity of the employee in startups.

179
5.7.1.2. Variance of the Level of Employee Engagement on Productivity of
Employee:
Table 5.28 : ANOVA for the Level of Employee Engagement on Employee

Productivity
Sum of
Model Df Mean Square F Sig.
Squares
Regression 45.140 1 45.140 48.901 .000b
1 Residual 434.780 471 .923
Total 479.920 472
a. Dependent Variable: Employee productivity
b. Predictors: (Constant): Level of Employee Engagement
The ANOVA table exposes that the F statistics of the regression model was
statically significant at 0.05 levels implying the goodness of fit of the regression
equation.
5.7.1.3. Regression- Coefficient- Impact of the Level of Employee Engagement on

Employee Productivity:
Table 5.29 : Regression- Co-efficient- Level of Employee Engagement Impact on

Employee Productivity
Model Unstandardized Standardizes T Sig. (P

Co-efficient Co-efficient Value)
B Std. Error Beta
Constant 6.338 .412 15.384 .000
1 Level of Employee
.616 .088 .557 6.993 .000
Engagement
a. Dependent Variable: Employee productivity
180
Table 5.29 indicates standardized regression co-efficient which shows the
strength of impact and its positive/ negative direction. This also comprises of T and
of employee engagement level on employee productivity.
The simple regression equation of this model is Y = 0.616X1 + 6.338
• X1= Level of Employee Engagement
5.7.1.4. Employee Productivity:
Table 5.29 shows Beta value as 0.557 that indicates that the level of employee
engagement was positively impact on productivity of employee. Since the T value is
6. 993 and the significant value is 0.000 which was less than 0.05 hence the level of
employee engagement was significantly impact on employee productivity in startups.
5.7.1.5. Simple Regression Result Summary:

The summary results impact: Simple Regression is presented in the table 5.30.
Table 5.30 : Summary of Level of Employee Engagement on Employee

Productivity
S. Sig. (P R Square
Variable Remark
No. value) value
1 Level of Employee engagement 0.000 Rejected 0.753
5.7.2. Impact of Level of Employee Engagement on Startup Productivity
5.7.2.1. Simple Regression-Model Summary:
Table 5.31 : Model Summary for the Level of Employee Engagement on Startup
Productivity
Estimate
2 2
Durbin-
Model R R Adjusted R Standard
Watson
Error
1 .870a .760 .0756 .761 1.002
a. Predictors: Level of Employee Engagement

b. Dependent Variable: Startup Productivity
181
The regression table 5.31 develops the model performance through the
following statistics.
• R: it represents the multiple correlations co-efficient with the range lies

between -1 and +1. Since the R-value is 0.870 means that there is a high
positive relationship between the Level of Employee Engagement and
productivity of startup.
• R square: It represents the coefficient of determination which lies between 0

and 1. Because the R square value is 0.760, it explained 76.0 percent of the
variation is there in the productivity of startups.

5.7.2.2. Variance of the Level of Employee Engagement on Startup Productivity:
Table 5.32: ANOVA for the Level of Employee Engagement on Startup

Productivity
Sum of Mean
Model Df F Sig.
Squares Square
Regression 32.736 1 32.736 36.934 .000b
1 Residual 417.463 471 .886
Total 450.199 472
a. Dependent Variable: Startup productivity
b. Predictors: Level of Employee Engagement
The ANOVA stated that the F statistics of the regression model are statically
significant at 0.05 levels implying the goodness of fit of the regression equation.
182
5.7.2.3. Regression- Co-efficient- Level of Employee Engagement Impact on
Startup Productivity:
Table 5.33 : Regression- Coefficient- Level of Employee Engagement Impact on

Startup Productivity
Unstandardized Standardized
Model Co-efficient Co-efficient T Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 6.052 .404 14.993 .000
Level of
1
Employee .524 .086 .270 6.077 .000
Engagement
a. Dependent Variable: Startup productivity
In the table 5.33, standardized regression coefficients values represents

strength of impact and its positive/ negative direction. It also comprises of T and
of the level of employee engagement on Startup Productivity.
The simple regression equation of this model is Y = -0.524X1 + 6.052
• X1= Level of Employee Engagement
5.7.7.4. Startup Productivity
Table 5.33 shows Beta value as 0.270 which indicates the level of employee
engagement positively impact on employee productivity. Since the T value is 6. 077
and the value significance were 0.000 that is less than 0.05. Hence, the level of
employee engagement had a significant impact on the productivity of startups.
183
5.7.2.5.Simple Regression Result Summary:
The summary results impact: Simple Regression is presented in table 5.34
Table 5.34 : Summary about Level of Employee Engagement on Startup’s

Productivity
S. Sig. R Square
Variable Remark
No. (P value) value
1 Level of Employee engagement 0.000 Rejected 0.760
5.8. COMPARATIVE STUDY:
This result explored the descriptive and comparative analysis startups between
three types of industries in Bangalore city. The study prime aim was to evaluate the
impact of employee engagement drivers on the level of employee engagement as well
impact of the level of employee engagement on productivity of both employee and
startups between three different industries.
5.8.1. Model of Employee Engagement:

5.8.1.1. Gallup’s Engagement Hierarchy:
Table 5.35 : Gallup’s Engagement Hierarchy
Industry Health care and

Type IT Services Education
Life Science
Scaling Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Strongly 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disagree
Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0
Neutral 70 21.8 22 22 9 17.3
Agree 168 52.3 52 52 28 53.8
Strongly 83 25.9 26 26 15 28.8
agree
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.05 4.04 4.12
Standard .690 .695 .676
Deviation
184
The table 5.35 inferred the Gallup’s Engagement Hierarchy. In IT Services
startups it shows that 21.8% of respondents were neutral, 52.3% of respondents
agreed, and the rest 25.9% of the respondents were strongly agreed that they are using
Gallup’s Engagement Hierarchy model in IT Services related startup companies.
While in Education related startups it has been observed, that 22% of
respondents were neutral, 52% of the respondents were agreed and 26% of the
respondents were strongly agree that they are regularly employee engagement
practices based on this model in startups belongs to Education.
In health care and life science-related startups, it can depict that 17.3% of
respondents were neutral, 53.2% of the respondents were agreed, and 28.8% of the
respondents were strongly agreed that they are providing employee engagement
practices based on this model in startups belongs to Healthcare and Life Science.
From the above table, it was observed that Gallup’s Engagement Hierarchy
model with a mean value 4.05 was in IT Services startups, 4.04 was in Education
related startups and 5.12 was in Health Care and Life Science startups, it represents
Gallup’s Engagement Hierarchy model is more important to issues the engagement
practices in Health Care and Life Science startups.
5.8.1.2. Three Dimensions to Employee Engagement:
Table 5.36 : Three Dimensions to Employee Engagement
Industry IT Services Education Health care and

Type Life Science
Disagree
Disagree 5 1.5 0 0 0 0
Neutral 5 1.5 18 18 20 38.5
Agree 300 93.4 82 82 22 42.3
Strongly 11 3.4 0 0 10 19.2
agree
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.01 3.89 3.76
Standard .111 0.121 000
Deviation
185
The above table 5.36 inferred that three dimensions to Employee Engagement.
In IT Services Startups it shows that 1.5% of respondents disagreed, 1.5% of
respondents were neutral, 93.4% of respondents agreed, and rest 3.4% of the
respondents were strongly agree, with the three dimensions to employee engagement
model is important in IT Services related startup companies to engage the employee.
respondents were neutral, 82% of the respondents agreed towards employee
engagement practices providing based on this model in startups belongs to Education.
respondents were neutral, 42.3%of the respondents were agreed, and 19.2% of the
respondents were strongly agreed with startups belongs to Healthcare and Life
Science are using this model.
From the above table, 5.36 was found that Three Dimensions to Employee
Engagement model with a mean value 4.01 was in IT Services startups, 3.89 was in
Education related startups and 3.76 was in HealthCare and Life Science startups, it
indicates the three dimensions to employee engagement is more important to engage
the employee in IT Service startups than Education and Health Care and Life Science.
5.8.1.3. Aon Hewitt’s Model of Employee Engagement:
Table 5.37 : Aon Hewitt’s Model of Employee Engagement
Industry IT Services Education Health care and

Type Life Science
Disagree
Disagree 7 2.2 0 0 0 0
Neutral 55 17.1 29 29 8 15.4
Agree 175 54.5 43 43 26 50
Strongly 84 26.2 28 28 18 34.6
agree
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.07 3.99 4.19
Standard .672 .759 .687
Deviation
Sources: Primary Data Through Questionnaire
186
The above table was described Aon Hewitt’s Model of Employee
Engagement. In IT Services Startups it shows that 2.2% of respondents disagreed,
17.1% respondents were neutral, 54.5% of respondents agreed and rest 26.2% of the
respondents were strongly agree, it means Aon Hewitt’s Model of Employee
Engagement is important in IT Services related startup companies to engage the
employee.

respondents were strongly agreed with the employee engagement practices providing
based on this model in startups belongs to Education.
In Health Care and Life Science related startups it can depict that 15.4% of
respondents were neutral, 50% of the respondents were agreed and 34.6% of the
respondents were strongly agreed, that the startups belong to healthcare and life
science are using this model.
From the above table, 5.37 was found that Aon Hewitt’s Model of Employee
Engagement with a mean value 4.07 was in IT services startups, 3.99 was in
Education related startups and 4.19 was in health care and life science startups, it
shows that Aon Hewitt’s Model of Employee Engagement is more important to
engage the employee in health care and life science startups than education and IT
services.
187
5.8.1.4. Kahn Model of Employee Engagement:
Table 5.38 : Kahn Model of Employee Engagement

IT Services Education
Type Life Science
Strongly
0 0 0 0 0 0
Disagree
Neutral 28 9 11 11 5 9.6
Agree 145 45 48 48 27 51.9
Strongly
148 46 41 41 20 38.5
agree
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.42 4.30 4.28
Standard
.602 .659 .636
Deviation
The above table 5.38 was described as the Kahn Model of Employee
Engagement. In IT Services Startups it shows that 9% of respondents were neutral,
45% of respondents agreed and rest 46% of the respondents were strongly agree, it
means Kahn Model of Employee Engagement is important in IT Services related
startup companies to engage the employee.

respondents were neutral, 51.9% of the respondents agreed and 38.5% of the
respondents strongly agreed, that the startups belong to Health Care and Life Science
are using this model.
From the above table, 5.38 was found that Kahn Model of Employee
Engagement with a mean value 4.42 was in IT Services startups, 4.30 was in
Education related startups and 4.28 was in health care and life science startups, it
188
shows that Kahn employee engagement model is more essential to engage the
employee in IT Services startups than education and health care and life science.
5.8.1.5. Saks Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Employee

Engagement:
Table 5.39 : Saks Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Employee

Engagement

Type Life Science
Strongly
0 0 0 0 0 0
Disagree
Disagree 12 3.8 0 0 0 0
Neutral 57 17.7 6 6 3 5.8
Agree 151 47 68 68 33 63.4
Strongly
101 31.5 26 26 16 30.8
agree
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.29 4.20 4.25
Standard
.675 .532 .555
Deviation
The above table 5.39 was described as the Saks Model of the Antecedents and
Consequences of Employee Engagement. In IT services startups it shows that 3.8% of
the respondents disagreed, 17.7% respondents were neutral, 47% of respondents
agreed and rest 31.5% of the respondents were strongly agree, it means this model is
important in IT Services related startup companies to engage the employee.
While in Education related startups it has been observed, that 6 percent of

employees were neutral, 68% of the respondents were agreed and 26% of the
189
respondents were neutral, 63.4% of the respondents agreed and 30.8% of the
respondents strongly agreed, that the startups belong to Health Care and Life Science
From the above table 5.39 was found that this model with a mean value 4.29
was in IT services startups, 4.20 was in education related startups and 4.25 was in
health care and life science startups, it shows that this is more important to engage the
employee in IT services startups than education and health care and life science.
5.8.1.6. Zinger Model of Employee Engagement:
Table 5.40 : Zinger Model of Employee Engagement

Type Life Science
Strongly
0 0 0 0 0 0
Disagree
Disagree 1 0.3 0 0 0 0
Neutral 50 15.6 11 11 7 13.5
Agree 173 53.9 67 67 32 61.5
Strongly 97 30.2 22 22 13 25
agree
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.14 4.11 4.11
Standard .672 .566 .615

Deviation
190
The above table 5.40 was described as the Zinger Model of Employee
Engagement. In IT Services Startups it shows that 0.3% of the respondents disagreed,
15.6% respondents were neutral, 53.9% of respondents agreed and rest 30.2% of the
respondents were strongly agree, it means Zinger Model of Employee Engagement is
important in IT Services related startup companies to engage the employee.

respondents were strongly agreed with the Employee Engagement practices providing
respondents were Neutral, 61.5% of the respondents agreed, and 25% of the
respondents strongly agreed, that the startups belong to Healthcare and Life Science
From the above table 5.40 was found that Zinger Model of Employee
Engagement with a mean value 4.14 was in IT Services startups, 4.11 was in
shows that Zinger Model of Employee Engagement is more important to engage the
employee in IT Services startups than Education and Healthcare and Life Science.
5.8.2 Analysis Based on Employee’s Opinion towards Employee Engagement

Drivers and level of Employee engagement and productivity in startups
from IT Services, Education and Health care, and Life Science
In Part II, Part III, and Part V questionnaire the respondents were required to
answer questions relating to the Drivers of employee engagement, level of employee
engagement, and Productivity.
The results of these sections were summarized in tabular form using excel
sheets. This has been measured by using 5 points Likert scale with intervals ranging
from 1=strongly disagree, 2= disagree, 3= neutral, 4= agree, and 5= strongly agree.
Frequency, percentage, Mean and Standard Deviation was calculated with the help of
SPSS software. The prime statistic for the analysis and interpretation was the mean
value. Mean was considered to describe the most essential driver, which leads the
employee engagement and to exhibit the employee opinion towards the level of
employee engagement. And to calculate the impact of the level of employee
191
engagement on Productivity was measured by using 1.very low, 2.low, 3.average,
4.high, 5.very high and the mean value was described how much the level of
employee engagement impact on productivity.
5.8.2.1. Growth and Development Opportunities:
Table 5.41 : Growth and Development Opportunities

Life Science
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Scaling
Disagree
Disagree 4 1.2 0 0 0 0
Neutral 18 5.6 0 0 0 0
Agree 99 30.8 86 86 28 53
Strongly 200 62.3 14 14 24 46

agree
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.54 4.14 4.46
Standard .661 .349 .503

Deviation
192
Chart – 7 : Growth and Development Opportunities
The above table 5.41 inferred that do the employees receive growth and
development opportunities at work regularly. In IT Services Startups it shows that
1.2% of respondents disagreed, 5.6% of respondents were neutral, 30.8% of
respondents agreed, and rest 62.3% of the respondents were strongly agree, that they
are regularly received growth and development opportunities at work in startups
which belong to IT Services.
While in Education related startups it has been observed that 86% of the
respondents agreed and 14% of the respondents strongly agreed that they regularly
receive growth and development opportunities at work.
In health care and life, science-related startups depicted that 53% of the
respondents agreed and 46% of the respondents strongly agreed, that they are getting
opportunities for growth and development.
The above table 5.41 was found that Growth and Development opportunities
with a mean value 4.54 were in IT Services startups, 4.14 was in Education related
startups and 4.46 was in Health Care and Life Science Startups, it shows that Growth
and Development Opportunities is more important driver for engaging the employee
in IT Services startups than Education and Healthcare and Life Science.
193
5.8.2.2 Working Environment:
Table. 5.42 : Working Environment

Type Life Science
Strongly
0 0 0 0 0 0
Disagree
Disagree 6 1.9 0 0 0 0
Neutral 15 4.7 0 0 0 0
Agree 86 26.8 62 62 23 44.2
Strongly 214 66.7 38 38 29 55.8
agree
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.58 4.38 4.56
Standard 0.671 .488 .502
deviation
Chart – 8 : Working Environment
194
The above table 5.42 inferred that do the employees having a good working
environment. In IT Services Startups it shows that 1.9% of respondents disagreed,
4.7% of respondents were neutral, 26.8% of respondents agreed, and rest 66.7% of the
respondents were strongly agree that they regularly receive good working
Environment in startups which belong to IT Services.
respondents agreed and 38% of the respondents strongly agreed that they are having a
good working environment.
In health care and life science-related startups, it can depict that 44.2% of the
respondents agreed and 55.8% of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement
that they having a good working environment.
The above table 5.42 was found that Working Environment with a mean value
4.58 was in IT Services startups, 4.39 was in Education related startups and 4.56 was
in HealthCare and Life Science startups, it shows that employees opinion, that their
startups in IT Services industry sector are providing good working environment
practices for engaging the employee than Healthcare and Life Science and Education.
5.8.2.3 Compensation and Benefits:
Table 5.43 : Compensation and Benefits

Industry Health care and Life
Type Science
Disagree
Disagree 19 5.9 0 0 0 0
Neutral 12 3.7 0 0 0 0
Agree 115 35.8 84 84 32 61.5
Strongly 175 54.5 16 16 20 38.5
agree
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.38 4.16 4.38
Standard .818 .368 .491
deviation
195
Chart – 9 : Compensation and Benefits
The above table 5.43 inferred that do the employees receiving compensation
and benefits at work. In IT Services Startups it shows that 5.9% of respondents
disagreed, 3.7% of respondents were neutral, 35.8% of respondents agreed, and rest
54.5% of the respondents were strongly agree that they regularly receive
compensation and benefits for their work.
While in Education related startups it has been observed that 84%of the
respondents agreed and 16% of the respondents strongly agreed that they regularly
receive compensation and benefits for their work.
that they regularly receive compensation and benefits for their work.
The above table 5.43 was observed that employee opinion on compensation and
Benefits with a mean value 4.38 was in IT Services startups, 4.16 was in Education
related startups and 4.38 was in Health Care and Life Science startups, it indicates that
IT Services and Health Care and Life Science industry sector startups are providing
more compensation and benefits to the employee to keep them engage than Education
industry sector startups.
196
5.8.2.4. Quality of Life:
Table 5.44 : Quality of Life

Type Life Science
Strongly
0 0 0 0 0 0
Disagree
Disagree 6 1.9 0 0 0 0
Neutral 1 1.2 15 15 4 7.7
Agree 142 44.2 72 72 30 57.7
Strongly 169 52.6 13 13 18 34.6

agree
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.48 3.98 4.27
Standard .623 .531 .598

deviation
Chart – 10 : Quality of Life
197
The above table 5.44 inferred that do the employees having Quality of Life. In
IT Services Startups it shows that 1.9% of respondents disagreed, 1.2% of
respondents were neutral, 44.2% of respondents agreed, and the rest 52.6% of the
respondents strongly agreed that they regularly receive the quality of life in startups
which belong to IT Services.
respondents were neutral and 72% of the respondents agreed and 13% of the
respondents strongly agreed with the statement that their startups offering good
compensation and benefits for their efforts at work.
respondents were neutral and 57.7% of the respondents agreed and 34.6% of the
respondents strongly agreed with the statement that their startups offering good
compensation and benefits for their efforts at work.
The above table 5.44 was observed that employee opinion on practices for
Quality of life with a mean values 4.48 was in IT Services startups, 3.98 was in
Education related startups and 4.27 was in Health Care and Life Science startups, it
indicates that IT Services industry sector startups are providing practices for quality of
life of employee to keep them engage than Health Care and Life Science and
Education industry Sector Startups.
198
5.8.2.5. Nature of the Job:
Table 5.45 : Nature of the Job
Industry Health care and Life

Type Science
Strongly
0 0 0 0 0 0
Disagree
Disagree 6 1.9 0 0 0 0
Neutral 49 15.3 3 3 1 1.9
Agree 150 46.7 80 80 29 55.8
Strongly
116 36.1 17 17 22 42.3
agree
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.17 4.14 4.40
standard
.749 .427 .534
deviation
Chart – 11 : Nature of the Job
199
The above table 5.45 inferred that do the employees having good job
characteristics. In IT Services Startups, it shows that 1.9% of the respondents
disagreed, 15.3% respondents were Neutral, 46.7% of respondents agreed and rest
36.1% of the respondents were strongly agree that they regularly good job nature with
rotation, variety of tasks autonomy for decision making in their job at startups which
belong to IT Services.

respondents were neutral and 80% of the respondents agreed and 17% of the
respondents strongly agreed with the statement that they are having good job nature.
respondents were neutral and 55.8% of the respondents agreed, and 42.3% of the
respondents strongly agreed with the statement that they are having good job nature.
The above table 5.45 was observed that employee opinion on practices for
Quality of life with a mean value 4.17 was in IT Services startups, 4.14 was in
indicates that Healthcare and Life Science industry sector startups are providing
practices perfect nature of the job to keep the employee engaged than IT Services and
Education industry Sector Startups.
200
5.8.2.6. Level of Employee Engagement has increased:
Table 5.46 : Level of Employee Engagement

Type Life Science
Strongly
0 0 0 0 0 0
Disagree
Neutral 6 1.9 0 0 0 0
Agree 78 24.3 54 54 21 40.4
Strongly
237 73.8 46 46 31 59.6
agree
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.72 4.46 4.60
Standard
.490 .501 .495
deviation
201
Chart – 12 : Level of Employee Engagement
The above table 5.46 indicated that the level of Employee engagement
increased physically, emotionally, and cognitively. In IT Services Startups, it shows
that 1.9% of respondents were neutral, 24.3% of respondents agreed, and rest 73.8%
of the respondents were strongly agree with the statement that the level of employee
engagement is increasing in startups which belong to IT Services.
respondents agreed and 46% of the respondents strongly agreed with the statement
that the improvement of the level of employee engagement.
that their level of employee engagement has increased.
The above table 5.46 was observed that employee opinion on the level of
employee engagement has increased with a mean value 4.72 was in IT Services
startups, 4.46 was in Education related startups and 4.60 was in HealthCare and Life
Science startups, it indicates that Level of employee engagement has increased IT
Service industry sector startups than Healthcare and Life Science and Education
industry sector startups.
202
5.8.2.7. Employee Productivity:
Table 5.47 : Employee Productivity

Life Science
Scaling
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
Very low 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0 0 0 0
Average 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 136 42.4 68 68 22 42.3
Very High 185 57.6 32 32 30 57.7
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.58 4.32 4.58
Standard
.499 .469 .499
deviation
Chart – 13 : Increasing the Productivity of Employee
203
The above table 5.47 described that the employee opinion on changes in
employee productivity. In IT Services Startups, it shows that 42.4% of respondents
said that employee productivity high, and rest 57.6% of the respondents said that
employee productivity is very high. While in Education related startups it has been
observed that 68% of the respondents said employee productivity is high and 32% of
the respondents said employee productivity is very high.
respondents said employee productivity is high and 57.7% of the respondents said
employee productivity is very high.
The above table 5.47 was observed that employee opinion on the productivity
of employee with a mean value 4.58 was in IT Services startups, 4.32 was in
Education related startups and 4.58 was in Health Care and Life Science startups, it
indicates that the employee productivity is very in IT Service and Health Care and
Life Science industry sector startups than Education industry sector startups.
5.8.2. 8. Startup Productivity:
Table 5.48 : Startup Productivity

Type Life Science
Very low 0 0 0 0 0 0
Low 0 0 0 0 0 0
Average 0 0 0 0 0 0
High 172 53.9 54 54 27 51.9
Very High 149 46.4 46 46 25 48.1
Total 321 100 100 100 52 100
Mean 4.46 4.46 4.48
Standard .499 .501 .505

deviation
204
Chart - 14 : Startup Productivity
The above table 5.48 inferred that the employee opinion on the improvement
of the startup productivity in the ways of startup reputation, profit of the startup,
financial performance of the startup's overall performance of the startups. In IT
Services Startups, shows that 53.9% of respondents said that startup productivity is
high and rest 46.4% of the respondents said that startup productivity is very high.
respondents said that startup productivity is high and 46% of the respondents said that
startup productivity is very high.
In Health care and Life science-related startups, it can depict that 51.9% of the
respondents said that startup productivity is high and 48.1% of the respondents said
that startup productivity is very high.
The above table 5.48 was observed that employee opinion on the productivity
of employee with a mean value 4.46 was in IT Services startups, 4.46 was in
indicates that the startup productivity is very high in Health Care and Life Science
industry sector startups than IT Services and Education industry sector startups.
205
5.9. MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS:
In the below table, there are significant p values that signify that identified
variables of employee engagement explain the variation in employee satisfaction in
the financial sector.
5.9.1. Regression analysis on Employee Engagement Drivers impact on Level of

Employee Engagement in Top 3 industries
Table No.5.49 : Regression analysis on Employee Engagement drivers impact on

Level of Employee Engagement in Top 3 industries
Dependent Independent Durbin- Sig. Unstandardized

Industry R R2 Remark
Variable Variable Watson Value Coefficient (B)
IT Level of Model .754 .577 1.993 .000 1.653

Employee
Growth and
Engagement
Development .000 .139
Opportunities
Working
.000 .177 Rejected
Environment
Compensations
.017 .083
and Benefits
Quality of Life .000 .178
Nature of the
.000 .111
Job
Education Level of Model .675 .491 1.901 .001 2.274

Employee
Growth and
Engagement
Development .021 -.324
Opportunities
Working
.046 -.038 Rejected
Environment
Compensations
.043 -.042
and Benefits
Nature of the
.000 .470
Job
206
Health Level of Model .748 .560 1.982 .000 2.546
and Life Employee
Growth and
science engagement
Development .049 -.304
Opportunities
Rejected
Working
.005 .156
Environment
Compensations
.047 -.246
and Benefits
Nature of the
.015 .303
Job
Source: From research Analysis
Chart 15 : Impact of Employee Engagement drivers on Level of Employee

Engagement
From the above table, R2 value in IT services is 0.577 which explains 57.7%
of the variability having a considerable effect on level of employee engagement with
Identified employee engagement drivers.
207
In the above table R2 value is 0.491 which explains that identified employee
engagement drivers 49.1% of the variability and significant impact on level of
employee engagement in education sectors.
In the case of Startups belongs to Health Care and Life Science R2 value is
0.560 which means that identified employee engagement drivers explain 56.0% of the
variability with a significant impact on level of employee engagement.
The F-ratio in the ANOVA table tests whether the overall regression model is
a good fit for the data. The above table indicates that the identified variables of
employee engagement drivers (independent variables) statistically significantly
predict the dependent variable level of employee engagement, F sig. value is less than
0.05 in all sectors (i.e., the regression model is a good fit of the data). Unstandardized
coefficients indicate how much the dependent variable varies with an independent
variable when all other independent variables are held constant.
“For testing the statistical significance of each of the independent variables, t-

value, and corresponding sig. value are located in the” t Sig. a column which indicates
a significant relationship existed between all the identified variables of employee
engagement activities and employee satisfaction.
5.9.2. Regression analysis on Impact of Level of Employee engagement on

Productivity of Employee and startup in Top 3 Industries
208
Table No.5.50 : Regression analysis on Impact of Level of Employee engagement on Productivity of Employee and startup in Top 3
Industries
Dependent Durbin- Sig. Unstandardized

Industry Independent Variable R R2 Remarks
Variable Watson Value Co-efficient (B)
Employee Model .690 .631 1.630 .000 4.554

Productivity Level of Employee engagement .037 -0.20 Rejected
IT Service
Startup Model .671 .613 1.851 000 4.785
Productivity Level of employee engagement .033 -.067 Rejected
Employee Model .651 .603 1.984 0.000 3.911

Education Rejected
Productivity Level of employee engagement 0.033 .091
Startup Model .571 .543 2.001 .000 5.027

Rejected
Productivity Level of Employee engagement .023 -.127
Health and Employee Model .512 .501 1.903 0.009 .5269

Life Science Productivity Level of employee Engagement 0.029 -.151 Rejected
Startup Model .621 .590 2.001 .000 3.722

Rejected
Productivity Level of Employee Engagement .042 .167
Source: From research Analysis
209
Chart – 16 : Impact of Level of Employee Engagement on Productivity
The above table stated that ‘R’ value indicates multiple correlation coefficient
values and to measure the quality of the variable which are dependent. The "R2"
value, which is the variance proportion of dependent variable it can elucidated by the
independent variables.
It was explained from the above table that in IT services R2 value is 0.631
which resembles that level of employee engagement explains 63.1% of the variability
and has a significant effect on employee productivity in IT services, and R2 value is
0.613 which means that level of employee engagement explains 61.3% of the
variability and had a significant impact on startup productivity in IT Services.
In the case of startups related to education R2 value is 0.603 which explains

60.3% of the variability between level of employee engagement and its impact on
employee productivity, and R2 value is 0.543 which means that level of employee
engagement explains variability 54.3% and has a significant impact on startup
productivity.
In the case of Startups belongs to health care and life science R2 value is 0.501
which means that level of employee engagement explains 56.0% of the variability and
had a significant e on employee productivity.
210
In case startups belongs to health care and life science R2 value is 0.590 which
means that level of employee engagement explains 59.0% of the variability significant
impact on startup productivity.
The ANOVA table helps for check whether the regression model is a good fit
to analyze the data. The above indicates that the level of employee engagement
significantly calculated the employee productivity and startup productivity, F
significant value of those variables is less than 0.05. Values of unstandardized
coefficient specified how much the dependent variables statistically significant with
an independent variable when all other independent variables are held constant.
“For testing the statistical significance for each independent variables, t-value,
and corresponding sig. value is located in the” t Significant value. a column which
indicates a significant relationship existed between the level of employee Engagement
and Productivity of both employees and Startups.
211
REFERENCE:
1. Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's

alpha International journal of medical education, 2, 53.
2. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: answers to
selected exercises. A Simple Guide and Reference, 63, 1461-1470.
3. Sclove S.L. Likert. 06 October 2001. 17 January 2012

http://www.uic.edu/classes/idsc/ids270sls/likert.htm
4. Garson, G.D. Structural Equation Modeling: Statnotes. 2010. 27 November

2011 http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/PA765/structur.htm.
5. Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research methodology: Methods and techniques. New

Age International.
6. Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS., 2nd edn.(SAGE

Publications: London.).
7. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1),

31-36.
8. Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., &Gudergan, S. P. (2017). Advanced
issues in partial least squares structural equation modeling. saGe
publications.
212

08 - Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

08 - Chapter 5

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER – V

The research study is analyzed by collecting data on employee engagement

5.2.1. Reliability Results:

Reliability was described because of the volume to which a questionnaire,

There are numerous techniques were used to measuring the reliability. A

5.2.2. Scale Variables:

Table 5.1 : Case Processing Summary of all Variables

Valid 473 100.0

Cases Excludeda 0 0.0

Total 473 100.0

a. Listwise Deletion based on all variables in the procedure

Source: Primary data through questionnaire

5.2.3. Reliability Test Results of Dimension wise

Table 5.2 : Reliability Test Results of Dimension wise

Drivers of Employee Engagement 25 0.874

Level of Employee Engagement 15 0.731

Employee Engagement Models 6 0.582

Employee Productivity 7 0.790

Startup Productivity 8 .0.871

Source: Primary data Trough Questionnaire

Table: 5.3 : Guttman split-half Reliability

Total Number of Items 61

Correlation Between Forms .570

Equal Length .727

Guttman split-half Coefficient .711

a. Total variables in Part 1

b. Total count of variables in part 2

Source: Primary data through questionnaire

5.3. DESCRIPTION OF DEMOGRAPHIC DATA:

Table 5.4 : Responses Based on Gender

Description Frequency Percentage

Male 294 62.2

Female 179 37.8

Total 473 100

Source: Primary data through questionnaire

Chart 1: Responses Based on Gender

Table 5.5 : Responses Based on Age

Description Frequency Percentage

Total 473 100%

Source: Primary data through questionnaire

Chart 2: Responses Based on Age

Table 5.6 : Responses Based on Designation Level

Nature of the job Frequency Percentage

Operational Level 401 85

Total 473 100

Source: Primary data through questionnaire

Chart 3 : Responses Based on Designation Level of Employee

Table 5.7 : Responses Based on Name of the Startups

5.3.5. Responses Based on Industry:

Table 5.8 : Responses Based on Industry Sector

Industry Frequency Percentage

IT Services 321 67.9

Education 100 21.1

Healthcare and Life Science 52 11.0

Total 473 100

Source: Primary data through questionnaire

5.3.6. Responses Based on Experience in the Same Company:

Table 5.9 : Responses Based on Experience in the Same Company

Years of Experience Frequency Percentage

1.1 – 2 Years 364 77

2.1 – 3 Years 83 17.5

3.1 – 4 Years 23 4.8