SDF Final 1

A STUDY ON THE FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO

SAME DEUTZ FAHR PRIVATE LIMITED
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Business Administration
Submitted by
DHEENA T
22MBA0190
Under the guidance of

Dr. SYED KHALID PERWEZ
PROFESSOR GRADE 2
VIT BUSINESS SCHOOL
MAY-2024
I
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that the capstone project entitled “A Study on the factors influencing employee
engagement with special reference to Same Deutz Fahr Pvt. Ltd.” submitted by me, for the award of
the degree of Master of Business Administration to VIT Business school is a record of bonafide work
carried out by me under the supervision of Dr. Syed Khalid Perwaz. I further declare that the work
reported in this thesis has not been submitted and will not be submitted, either in part or in full, for the
award of any other degree or diploma in this institute or any other institute or university.
Place : Vellore
Date : Signature of the Candidate
II
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the capstone project entitled “A Study on the factors influencing employee
engagement with special reference to Same Deutz Fahr Pvt. Ltd.” submitted by DHEENA T
(22MBA0190), VIT BUSINESS SCHOOL, VIT University, for the award of the degree of Master of
Business Administration, is a record of bonafide work carried out by him/her under my supervision during
the period From (25-02-2024)- to (03-05-2024)- , as per the VIT code of academic and research ethics.
The contents of this report have not been submitted and will not be submitted either in part or in full, for
the award of any other degree or diploma in this institute or any other institute or university. The thesis
fulfills the requirements and regulations of the University and in my opinion meets the necessary
standards for submission.
Date:
Place : Vellore Signature of the Guide
Head of Department
Dr. Rajesh M
Professor Grade 1
Internal Examiner External Examiner
III
CERTIFICATE OF INTERNSHIP
III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, I would be thankful to ALMIGHTY GOD for everything in my life. I wishto place
my sincere thanks to the chancellor of this university Dr. G. Viswanathan, for his valuable
contribution to the society as well as to the studentcommunity.
I owe a big word of THANKS for all what he has contributed to this work, despite his busy
schedule of work. I am grateful to the Dean of VIT Business School, Dr.V.V. Gopal for
encouraging and providing me with the necessary assistancein accomplishing the project.
The completion of this project had been possible only with the help, advice, hardwork, and
sacrifice from the part of my guide Dr. SYED KHALID PERWAZ, Professor, VIT Business
School.
I also wish to extend my sincere thanks to Mr. Ananthan, HR Manager and other staff
members of SDF for all their help and support in completing my project work.
DHEENA T
22MBA0190
V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Employee engagement is a relatively recent notion; Kahn first described it as "personal

engagement" and "personal disengagement" in 1990. Although interest in the topic has grown
(Frauenheim 2009; Kular et al. 2008; Robertson-Smith and Marwick 2009; Saks 2006; Shuck
and Wollard 2010), the phrase still lacks a precise definition, and there has been scant academic
research on the subject (Saks, 2006).
The purpose of this research is to measure levels of employee engagement and to add to the
existing knowledge pool of academic research on the topic of employee engagement.
In this research with the help of Gallup Q12 we evaluated the level of employee engagement
among white collar employees of Same Deutz Fahr, finally with all the findings out of the
percentage analysis it was concluded that the perception of the employees towards their
organization with regards to work engagement are in assenting terms which shows the positive
aspect of the organization and its relationship with its employees.
VI
CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO
I INTRODUCTION 1
II LITERATURE RIVIEW 11
III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 14
IV DATA ANALYSIS & 17

INTERPRETATION
V FINDINGS, SUGGESTIONS & 52
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY 56
APPENDIX - QUESTIONNAIRE 59
VII
LIST OF TABLES:
S.NO PARTICULARS PG.NO
17
1 Age of the respondents
18
2 Gender of the Respondents
19
3 Educational qualification of the Respondents
20
4 Marital Status of the Respondents
21
5 Experience of the Respondents
22
6 The reason for employees to join in this organization
23
7 Employee’s mostly take leave for few reasons
24
8 Employees have been able to draw a balance between
job and personal life
9 Work place makes the employee’s work efficiently 25
26
10 Working secure environment and employees plant
safe & secure to work
27
11 Welfare facilities are useful to employees
28
12 Employees have clear understanding of their job role and
what is expected at work place
29
13 Superior or someone at work seems to care about
employees as a person
30
14 Employees can place their problem or feedback to
theirsuperior without any hesitation
31
15 Organization provides enough information, equipment,
and resources to do job well
VIII
32
16 Employee’s growth is enhanced in the organization
andgetting encouragements from the superiors
33
17 Respondents’ peers are committed to do quality
work
34
18 Employee’s future growth opportunities seem to be
good in this company
35
19 In order to help this company, succeed employee is
always willing to put efforts beyond their normal
requirements.
36
20 Employee’s receive adequate recognition (beyond
compensation) for their contributions/
efforts are fairand transparent
37
21 Employee’s feel their job is secure, as long as they
perform well in the company
38
22 Test of Normality
40
23 Cross tabulation between Marital Status and ability to
draw a balance job and personal life.
41
24 Cross tabulation between age and reason to join the
organization
42
25 Cross tabulation between gender and reason to join the
organization
44
26 Correlation between gender and various factor of
employee engagement
48
27 Correlation between work experience and various factor
of employee engagement
IX
LIST OF CHARTS
S.NO PARTICULARS PG.NO
17
1 Age of the respondents
18
2 Gender of the Respondents
19
3 Educational qualification of the Respondents
20
4 Marital Status of the Respondents
21
5 Experience of the Respondents
22
6 The reason for employees to join in this organization
23
7 Employee’s mostly take leave for few reasons
24
8 Employees have been able to draw a balance between
job and personal life
Work place makes the employees work efficiently 25

9
26
10 Working in a secure environment and employee’s plants
27
11 Welfare facilities are useful to employees
28
12 Employees have clear understanding of their
job roleand what is expected at work place
29
13 Superior or someone at work seems to care about
employees as a person
30
14 Employees can place their problem or feedback
to their superior without any hesitation
X
31
15 Organization provides enough information, equipment
and resources to do job well
Employee’s growth is enhanced in the organization and 32
16 getting encouragements from the superiors
Respondents’ peers are committed to do quality work 33

17
34
18 Employee’s future growth opportunities seem to be
35
19 In order to help this company, succeed employee is
always willing to put efforts beyond their normal
requirements.
36
20 Employee’s receive adequate recognition
(beyond compensation) for their
contributions/ efforts are fair and transparent
Employee’s feel their job is secure, as long as they 37
21 perform well in the company
XI
CHAPTER - I
INTRODUCTION
It has become one of the most leading priorities of human resource practitioners and senior
managers in the corporate world (Bhatla, 2011). Employee engagement has generated great
deal of attention among many human resource practitioners, business entrepreneurs and
academic researchers across the globe (Larkin, 2009; Sharma & Anupama, 2010).
In this era of globalization and industrialization, where there is large scale competition in the
market, it is necessary for the organization to have engaged workforce for the survival and
smooth functioning of the organization.
Types of Employee’s work engagement:
According to the Gallup, the consulting organization, there are mainly three types of
engagement that occur in the organization. All are different in terms of involvement and their
role in the organizations.
Types of employee engagement are given in below:

1. Engaged employees
2. Not engaged
3. Actively Disengaged
1
1. Engaged Employees
An engaged employee is considered as the base of the organizational development. Such kind
of employees carry the organization in positive direction. They not only perform their work but
also play an important role in achieving the organizational goals and objectives.
2. Not Engaged
These kinds of employees care only about their work not any other things like goals, objectives,
and development of the organization. These categories of employees do not have cooperative
relationship with their colleagues as well as the employers also. Their contribution is little in
the success and development of the organization.
3. Actively Disengaged
Actively disengaged employees do not perform their work in a proper manner and do not
complete their work timely. Their contribution is almost negligible in the success and
development of the organization. They are unhappy at work and look after the work of the other
member of the organization. Such kind of employee carry the organization in the negative
direction and organization suffers in achieving its goals and objectives. (Vazirani, 2007).
Characteristics of Engaged employees
According to Robinson, Perryman, and Hay Day (as cited in IES, 2003) an engaged employee
has the following characteristics:
 Engaged employees have emotional attachment with their job as well as the organization.
 They have trust in the employers of the organization.
 Engaged employees perform beyond the expectation of the employers.
 Perform their work in view of goals and objectives of the organization.
 Engaged employees make necessary change as per requirement and keep update with the
knowledge in their field.
2
Factors influencing employee engagement:
In the present business scenario, employee engagement has become one of the most leading
priorities for human resource practitioners and senior managers in any organization. Garber
(2007) succinctly says that engagement is just like a muscle that continuously requires exercise
to grow and develop. Engaging the employees will keep them motivated and skilled in their
works. If the organization does not use those skills regularly, they will be diminished.
The factors which influence employee engagement are listed below:
1. Recruitment and selection

2. Job designing
3. Career development
4. Opportunities
5. Leadership
6. Empowerment
7. Equal opportunities and fair treatment
8. Performance management
9. Compensation
10. Health and safety
11. Job satisfaction
12. Communication
13. Family friendliness
Drivers of Employee Engagement:

For employees to find meaningfulness at work, organizations will have to provide the
atmosphere that acts as stimulants to drive employee engagement. Gibbons (2006) in an
exhaustive meta-analysis of the drivers of engagement examined twelve (12) research
publication each of which articulated drivers of employee engagement and twenty-six (26)
drivers were identified. However, the analysis highlighted eight (8) drivers which appeared to
have greater frequency in all the publications. The eight drivers of engagement identified by
Gibbons (2006) used to proactively drive engagement are:
3
1. Trust and Integrity – This is a driver of engagement that assures individuals that
management cares about them, opens to them, sets up adequate communication channels, is
attentive to the employees, ensures that employees opinions count and the values and goals of
the organization align with employee personal behaviours
2. Person-Job fit – HR practitioners must come up with jobs that fit into the nature of
employees. This is necessary so that the daily job content and roles can be a source of mental
and emotional wellbeing. An exciting and challenging job where employees are allowed to take
ownership and join the decision-making process.
3. Synchronization of individual and organization’s performance – this driver is about

how much the employee appreciates the company strategic goals, being aware of the wide
effect on overall performance and the individual alignment with the consciousness of how
employees‟ individual contribution adds to the overall company performance.
4. Career Growth Opportunities – Employees having a sense of career growth and

promotion. Training opportunities made available for employees will give them a feeling of
defined career path.
5. Pride About Company – Deriving self-esteem from being associated with a company will
boost engagement in an employee. This will enable a scenario where the employee advertises
the company to customers and possibly drawing talents from rival companies to come and join.
6. Co-workers/Team Members – Cooperative and supportive co-workers will drive up the

level of engagement of an employee.
7. Employee Development – This refers to the perception that the company is making specific
efforts to develop their personal kills.
8. Line Manager Relationship - A good working relationship with one’s manager is an

engagement driver that will boost the degree of engagement of an employee.
4
Furthermore, Mc Bain (2007) and Wellins et al, (2012) classified the drivers of engagement
under the following categories: (1) the organization, (2) leadership and management, and (3)
employees or working life.
LEVELS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT (EMPLOYEES):
Gallup (2004) reported that every organization has the following three categorizes of
employees and it described them as below;
Engaged Employees - “These employees‟ work with desire, drives innovation, participates in
building to keep organization in front”. They hunt for the level of prospects from them to
execute at reliable great levels.
Not engaged Employees are basically „checked out‟, sleepwalking throughout the day,
pushing time – but not energy and desire into their effort”. All they have to concentrate and
complete their work without extra mile.
Actively disengaged Employees are just not unhappy at work; are busy drama out their
unhappiness. They show unskilled performances and put no effort to their roles, rather, those
every day undermine what their engaged co-workers accomplish”.
BENEFITS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:
Employee engagement is not an easy issue to tackle. However, if you get it right there are great
prizes to be had. “The first two questions that you may encounter when you try to convince
others of this approach could be: So why our organization should be focused on this? What are
the potential business benefits?” (Cooks., 2009). There are plenty of research studies across
countries as to the benefits of the employee engagement. As proof of engagement works, in
this section the researcher quoted some of the key findings highlighting that organizations have
higher levels of employee engagement outperform their competitor’s profitability. In 2002
Waston Wyatt found that high-commitment organizations outperformed those with low
commitment by 47 percent. According to Tower Perrin (2003), higher levels of employee
engagement outperform their competitors in terms of performance and profitability on
aggregate by 17 percent. Gallup presented engaged employees are more creative, more
customer focused, less intention to quit the firm. According to the Bernthal. P. R. (2005), highly
5
engaged employees are 33 percent less likely to quit their concerns inside the next year.
Sandford university suggests that employee commitment results in corporate performance
gains of between 30 and 40 per cent. Studies showed revealed that firms can achieve 2 percent
increase in profitability and a 6 percent increase in customer satisfaction through a 10 percent
increase in employee engagement. The conditions where employees feel able to give of their
best:
 Greater productivity,
 Increased passion for and commitment to the organizations vision, strategy and goals,
 Greater alignment with the organization’s values,
 A high-energy working environment,
 A greater sense of team,
 Higher levels of creativity and innovation
 A greater sense of loyalty to the organization
 Higher staff retention, lowered attrition rate,
 Better recruitment and selection
 Higher talent retention
 Employees being better brand ambassadors,
 Attractive reputation,
 Improved customer experience and customer loyalty
 Boosted business growth
 Greater value creation
 Sustained, long term success
Ultimately, researchers endure to demonstrate a well-sustained relationship between business

results and employee engagement which goes beyond satisfaction and loyalty.
NEED OF THE STUDY:

The company intends to design a strategy that enhances the performance and the productivity
of the employees. To facilitate this process, as a first step the current level of engagement of
the employees towards their workplace has to be analysed. Therefore, this study progresses
with a small step of evaluating the white-collar employees first.
6
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:
 To augment the level of engagement of the employees even better than the current scenario.
 To design, develop and facilitate for a strategy to be formulated with respective to the
current level of employee engagement status of SDF, using the valid research instrument
named Gallup q 12.
 To identify the level of engagement of the employees towards their work place.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY
1H1 = There is association between marital Status and the employees’ ability to draw a
balance between their job and personal life.
2H1 = There is association between age and the reason for the employees to join in this
organization.
3H1 = There is association between gender and the reason for the employees to join in this
organization.
4H1= There is association between gender and the various factors of employee
engagement
5H1 = There is association between work experience and various factor of
employee engagement
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
 The results of the study would give rise to an outline of the engagement level of the
employees, in turn, to facilitate the modifications required for the affirmative perspectives
of the employees towards the organization.
 With the incorporation of such modifications, the goals of the organization could be
accomplished.
7
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
 There are risks for misrepresentation responses.

 The finding of this study cannot be applied in other organizations.
 The sampling technique used is stratified random sampling, so the study focuses only on a
specific group of employees.



8
COMPANY PROFILE
SDF has launched a project to update its tractor production plant in Ranipet, India. The upgraded facility
will increase the production capacity of SDF in India to meet the
increasing demand of the domestic Indian and global markets.
The work to update the plant, which will begin in January 2020,
will extend the logistics area and completely redefine the
transmission assembly line and paint department, employing the most advanced production technology
currently available to ensure world-class quality standards. The new facilities will increase the roofed
area of the 127,000 m2 plant from the current 26,000 m2 to 34,000 m2. Once complete, the work will
have modified the layout of the entire factory to respond to the new demands of the market, and the SDF
group's production capacity in India will be increased to over 20,000 units per year. The project, which
will go ahead without interrupting production, will be conducted over a 3 year period and entail a total
investment of around 7 million euros. This project to update the Ranipet plant is a continuation of the
SDF group's decades-long commitment to its operations in India (which date back to 1996) and, in
particular, in the Chennai district, the country's most important area for the automotive industry and
production of agricultural machinery.
Customer Challenge:
SDF Academy, the training school run by the Same Deutz Fahr Group, others technical and
profitable training courses to all of the company's sales network members. With input from
service specialists, marketing invention
coaches and shares authorities, who stay
constantly abreast of the latest engineering
growths and technical standards, the Same
Deutz Fahr Group is able to prepare dealers
for new challenges, enabling them to optimize customer service, andimprove sales negotiations
by bringing their product expertise to the market. Next the dynamicfluidity of the global economy
and the importance that emerging markets are assuming, along with the Company’s planned
priority for innovation, quality, and superb standards of customer service, a clear need for a
blended training plan that includes both Classroom Led and Web based Trainings has become a
necessity.
9
Solution:
In 2011 SDF Academy, adopted an E-Learning Stage, the Best Docebo edition, kicking an
advanced process for the Global Corporate Drill Strategy and the related performs, mixing
Instructor Led and Online Training. SDF Academy created an online course catalogue that
matched new product knowledge needs, based on the gradually far-reaching and complex
applications, that require training in technical IT skills growth. Over this scheme, SDF has
accomplished the entire sales grid and bridging practical help from dealers to official
mechanic’s works. This program has been moved out to Consumers in some languages. The
courses have been built based on modern methods of online instructional design: multimedia,
usability, gamification, and valuation. Analogous to this, a Train-the-Trainer project was
launched to allow every single subsidiary to duplicate the training model of the Company HQ.
SAME DEUTZ-FAHR and Docebo have worked closely together to design and device new
online modules, with the objective of making a useful and efficient management of the
Company’s database and its reporting tools.
10
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Bateset. al., (2004)

In recent years, there has been a great deal of interest in employee engagement. Many
researchers claimed that employee engagement predicts employee outcomes, organizational
success, and financial performance, e.g., total shareholder return. At the same time, it was
reported that employee engagement was on the decline and that there was a deepening
disengagement among employees today.
Bateset. al., (2004)

It has even been reported that today the majority of workers are not fully engaged or are
disengaged, leading to a so-called engagement gap, that is costing e.g., US businesses $300
billion a year in lost productivity.
Robinson et al., (2004)

Unfortunately, much of what has been written about employee engagement comes from
practitioner literature and consulting firms. There is a surprising lack of research on employee
engagement in the academic literature
Kahn (1990, 1992)

In academic literature, a number of definitions have been provided. Kahn defines personal
engagement as the harnessing of organization members' selves to their work roles; in
engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively, and emotionally
during role performances.
Rothbard (2001)
Defines engagement as emotional presence and, moreover, states that it includes two serious
components: helpfulness and interest. Attention refers the amount of time one spends
intelligent about a role and to thinking availability, while absorption refers to the intensity of
one's focus on a role and being engrossed in a role and refers to the intensity of one's focus on
a role.
11
Luthans and Peterson (2002)
Employee engagement is a multidimensional construct. Employees can be emotionally,
cognitively, or physically engaged. In their study, Luthans and Peterson proposed Kahn's work
on personal engagement, which provides a convergent theory for Gallup's empirically derived
employee engagement.
Schmidt (2004)
Defines engagement as bringing satisfaction and commitment together. Whilst satisfaction
addresses the more emotional or attitudinal element, commitment has bearing on the
motivational and physical elements. Schmidt contends that although satisfaction and
commitment are the two key elements of engagement, either of them on its own is sufficient to
guarantee engagement.
Schaufeli et al. (2004)

Define engagement as a confident, rewarding, professional state of mind that is characterized
by vigour, enthusiasm, and interest. They further state that engagement is not a momentary and
specific state, but rather a more persistent and pervasive affective-cognitive state that is not
focused on any particular object, event, individual, or behaviour.
Gubman (2004)
Engagement is, however, different from satisfaction. Gubman states that engagement means “a
sharp emotional connection to a work and group that goes beyond approval”, that enables
people to complete well, and makes them want to stay with their employers and say moral
things about them.
Siddhanta and Roy (2010).

Gallup has developed a popular engagement measuring tool known as Q12 Meta- Analysis
which analyses 199 research studies and explores the linkages between employee engagement
and performances in 152 organizations and 32,394 business units with a total of 955,905
employees. These are 12 items measuring issues, which are actionable or changeable at the
manager level. The questions that constitute the Q12 measures are measured on a five-point
scale of overall satisfaction where “5” represents extremely satisfied while “1” represents
extremely dissatisfied. Gallup has administered this survey to over 15 million employees in
164 different countries and 65 languages which makes it possible to conclude that the results
could be said to represent the state of employee engagement universally.
12
Ferguson (2007)
This does come with its own negativities in two ways, while engaging employees helps to
combat employee turnover and reduce recruitment costs, likewise, the longer an employee is
with an organization, the more likelihood of getting less engaged. This is evident that no matter
how important the employee engagement factor is, it does have its other side as well.
Schaufeli and Bakker (2004)

Correspondingly, it has greatly been debated that the intention of an employee to decline
working for an organization is indeed the most universal determinant of engagement. Engaged
individuals are more likely to stick to their organization than the less or not at all engaged
employees.
Meere (2005)
Classification identifies these different levels of engagement on thus:
 Engaged – these are employees who exhibit cognitive, emotional, and physical
engagements in their jobs. They exhibit commitment, passion, motivation, job satisfaction
and overall personal presence on the job.
 Not Engaged – These are those who perform their roles as a matter of duty. There is no
connection between the jobs they do with their personal self. They can show no
commitment and motivation and are at odds with the organization.
 Disengaged – This category of employees are disconnected from the aims and objectives
of the organization. They can become a source of disenchantment from employees toward
their employers. They are not happy at work and they show it thereby having a negative
effect on other employees.
Omaha, NE, (2003).

Gallup collected random samples of working populations from a series of workplace polls in
the U.S., U.K., Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Israel, Germany, and France.
Gallup’s engagement index was studied in relationship to intent to stay and likelihood to
recommend the organization to others. While the percent engaged varied by country, the
relationship between engagement and these outcomes remained consistent across the countries
studied. Via metanalysis, the relationship among overall engagement, the engagement index
13
(engaged, not engaged, and actively disengaged categories), and the outcome variables was
essentially the same across countries.
Omaha, NE. (2001).

Based on data collected from Gallup’s client database, researchers studied the item
characteristic curves across different regions of the world. Findings indicated that, while
percentage positive response to each item varies across different parts of the world, each item
functions (relates to overall engagement) in a similar manner across regions.
Robinson (2006)
Employee engagement can be achieved through the creation of an organisational environment
where positive emotions such as involvement and pride are encouraged, resulting in improved
organisational performance, lower employee turnover and better health.
Robinson et al (2004)
Key behaviours, which were found to be associated with employee engagement, included belief
in the organisation, desire to work to make things better, understanding of the business context
and the ‘bigger picture’, being respectful of and helpful to colleagues, willingness to ‘go the
extra mile’ and keeping up to date with developments in the field.
In summary, the literature surrounding employee involvement suggests that the root of
employee disengagement is poor management, whereby employees do not have good working
relationships with their managers and are denied the opportunity to communicate and have
some power in decision-making, let alone receive information from their managers. Employees
are in need of managers who care and who are seen to be committed to their organisation. Only
then can managers lure employees into putting discretionary effort into their work. However,
the problem is that managers themselves need to be engaged before they can engage their
subordinates; it is evident that levels of engagement must rise in management before they can
be expected to rise in employees given the impact management can have on employees.
14
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1. Primary Data – The researcher used standard and valid research instrument named
Gallup q 12.
2. Secondary Data – The researcher retrieved research papers from online Databases like
Emerald Insight, Research Gate and Shodhganga.
3. Research Instrument used - Gallup q12

The Gallup Q12 instrument is widely used by organizations to quantify and understand
their level of employee engagement. The instrument asks an organization’s employees to
indicate their agreement with 12 statements, using a 5-point scale from “strongly agree”
to “strongly disagree.” (A sixth category, for “don’t know/does not apply,” is not scored.)
4. Procedure adopted to collect the data

The responses from the respondents for the Gallup q 12 research instruments were collected
officially using google forms over their respective mails.
RESEARCH DESIGN
The researcher adopted descriptive research design with quantitative method, as it is concerned
with the research studies with a spotlight on the rendering of the characteristics of a group or
individual or a situation. The main objective of such studies is to attain knowledge.
a.) Sample Design – Probability sampling- Stratified random sampling.
The researcher used stratified random sampling. Stratum means a layer. Population from which
samples are to be selected may contain several layers. From each layer a few samples are
selected. That is why this method is named as stratified random sampling.
In this study, out of many layers or groups, only one set of groups is taken as the samples. That
is white collar employees. They are the target respondents of the study at SDF.
15
b.) Sample size – 125 Respondents
c.) Sample area - Same Deutz Fahr Private Limited, Ranipet, Tamil Nadu.
d.) Population - Targeted respondents are White collar employees of Same Deutz Fahr Private
Limited, Ranipet, Tamil Nadu.
STATISTICAL TOOLS APPLIED
The data set were analysed using IBM SPSS Version 22
1. Frequency tabulations-for simple percentage analysis frequency tabulation was adopted.
2. Cross tabulations- To obtain the percentage analysis with specificity corresponding to the
demographic variables, the cross tabulation was adopted.
3. The data were not found to be normal in distribution since, the values calculated were
moderately symmetrical which were derived from the values of skewness and kurtosis.
4. Since the data set were moderately symmetrical and were not normal in distribution, the
non-parametric test was applied to test the hypotheses in this study.
5. Correlation: Spearman’s Correlation to analyse the relationship between age, marital

status, and employee engagement
16
CHAPTER – V
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
PERCENTAGE ANALYSIS
Table No. 1
Age of the respondents
Age No. of Respondents Percentage
18-25 16 12.8
26-30 31 24.8
31-35 20 16
36-40 24 19.2
40-50 24 19.2
Above 50 10 8
Total 125 100.0
Source: Primary data

Inference
In case of age, from the above table it is noticed that 12.8 percentage of respondents are
between 18 and 25 years, 24.8percentage of respondents are between 26 and 30 years, 16
percentage of respondents are between 31 and 35 years, 19.2 percentage of respondents are
between 36 and 40 years, 19.2 percentage of respondents are between 40 and 50 years and 8
percentage of respondents are above 50.
Age of the respondents
PERCENTAGE
100
24.8
16 19.2 19.2
12.8
8
18-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 40-50 Above Total

50
Chart No. 1
17
Table No. 2
Gender of the Respondents

Gender No. of Respondents Percentage
Female 13 10.4
Male 112 89.6
Total 125 100.0

Inference
From the above table, 89.6 percentage of the respondents are male and 10.4
percentage of the respondents are female.
Gender of the respondents
PERCENTAGE
100
89.6
10.4
Female Male Total
Chart No. 2
18
Table No. 3
Educational qualification of the Respondents

Education No. of Respondents Percentage
ITI 16 12.8
Diploma 19 15.2
UG 59 47.2
PG 31 24.8
Total 125 100.0

Inference
In case of educational qualification, from the above table it is known that 15.2
percentage of the respondents have completed their diploma, 47.2 percentage of the
respondents are degree holders, 24.8 percentage of the respondents are master degree holders
and remaining 12.8percentage belong to ITI.
Educational qualification of the Respondents
PERCENTAGE
100
47.2
24.8
12.8 15.2
ITI Diploma UG PG Total
Chart No. 3
19
Table No. 4
Marital Status of the Respondents
Marital Status No. of Respondents Percentage

Married 82 66.4
Un-married 42 33.6
Total 125 100.0
Inference
From the above table it is inferred that, 33.6 percentage of the respondents are single
and 66.4percentage of the respondents are married people.
Marital Status of the Respondents
PERCENTAGE
100
66.4
33.6
Married Un-married Total
Chart No. 4
20
Table No. 5
Experience of the Respondents
Experience No. of respondents Percentage

0-2 years 20 16
2-5 Years 54 43.2
5 - 10 Years 38 30.4
10 years & above 13 10.4
Total 125 100.0
Inference
Table 5 demonstrates the experience of the respondents in Same Deutz Fahr private
limited. Out of 125 respondents, 16 percentage of the respondents possess 0 to 2 years, 43.2
percentage of the respondents possess 2 to 5 years, 30.4 percentage of the respondents possess
5 to 10 years and 10.4 percentage of the respondents possess 10 years & above of working
experience in SDF.
Experience of the Respondents
PERCENTAGE
100
43.2
30.4
16
10.4
0-2 years 2-5 Years 5 - 10 Years 10 years & Total

above
Chart No. 5
21
Table No: 6
Reason to join in this organization
Opinions No. of Respondents Percentage

Welfare Schemes 21 16.8
Company reputation 34 27.2
Career advancement 42 33.6
Salary advancement 28 22.4
Total 125 100.0
Inference
From the above table it is inferred that, 27.2 percentage of the respondents have joined
in this organisation for company reputation, 16.8 percentage of the respondents for welfare
schemes, 22.4 percentage of the respondents for salary advancement and 33.6 percentage of
the respondents consider career advancement is the reason to join in this organization.
The reason to join in this organization
PERCENTAGE
100
33.6
27.2
22.4
16.8
Welfare Company Career Salary Total

Schemes reputation advancement advancement
Chart No. 6
22
Table No. 7
Employee’s mostly take leave for few reasons

Family problem 24 19.2
Illness 41 32.8
Stress 36 28.8
Working condition 17 13.6
Others 7 5.6
Total 125 100.0
Inference
From the above table it is inferred that, 32.8 percentage of the respondents take leave
due to illness, 28.8 percentage of the respondents take leave due to stress, 19.2 percentage due
to their family problem, 13.6 percentage of the respondents take leave due to workingcondition.
Similarly, 5.6 percentage of the respondents have given other reason for taking leave.
Employee’s mostly take leave for few reasons
PERCENTAGE
100
32.8
28.8
19.2
13.6
5.6
Family Illness Stress Working others Total

problem condition
Chart No. 7
23
Table No. 8
Employees have been able to draw a balance between job and personal life

Yes 76 60.8
No 49 39.2
Total 125 100.0
Inference
From the above table it is inferred that, 60.8 percentage of the respondents can balance
between job and personal life, 39.2 percentage of the respondents have given ‘NO’ i.e.) they
were not able to balance between job and personal life.
Employees have been able to draw a balance between job and personal life
PERCENTAGE
100
60.8
39.2
Yes No Total
Chart No. 8
24
Table No. 9
Work place makes the employee’s work efficiently

Strongly Agree 49 39.2
Agree 43 34.4
Neutral 23 18.4
Disagree 4 3.2
Strongly Disagree 6 4.8
Total 125 100.0
Inference
From the above table it is inferred that, 34.4 percentage of the respondents have given
agree, 18.4 percentage of the respondents slightly agree, 3.2 percentage of the respondents have
given disagree, 4.8 percentage of the respondents strongly disagree and 39.2 percentage of the
respondents strongly agree that their work place makes the employee’s work efficiently.
Work place makes the employee’s work efficiently
PERCENTAGE
100
39.2
34.4
18.4
3.2 4.8
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Total

Agree Disagree
Chart No. 9
25
Table No. 10
Working in a secure environment and employee’s plant is safe & secure to work

Agree 47 37.6
Neutral 18 14.4
Disagree 5 4
Strongly disagree 5 4
Total 125 100.0
Inference
From the above table it is inferred that, 37.6 percentage of the respondents agree, 14.4
percentage of the respondents slightly agree, 4 percentage of the respondents have given
disagree, 4 percentage of the respondents strongly disagree and 40.0 percentage of the
respondents strongly agree that they are working in a secure environment and their plant is safe
and secure to work also.
Working in a secure environment and employee’s plant is safe & secure to work
PERCENTAGE
100
40 37.6
14.4
4 4

Agree disagree
Chart No. 10
26
Table No. 11
Welfare facilities are useful to employees

Agree 42 33.6
Neutral 39 31.2
Disagree 10 8.0
Strongly disagree 8 6.4
Total 125 100.0
Inference
percentage of the respondents slightly agree, 8.0 percentage of the respondents disagree, 6.4
percentage of the respondents strongly disagree and 20.8 percentage of the respondentsstrongly
agree that the welfare facilities provided to them are useful.
Welfare facilities are useful to employees
PERCENTAGE
100
33.6 31.2
20.8
8 6.4

Agree disagree
Chart No. 11
27
Table No. 12
Employees have clear understanding of their job role and what is expected at work
place

Agree 29 23.2
Neutral 12 9.6
Disagree 4 3.2
Total 125 100.0
Inference
respondents strongly agree that their employees have clear understanding of their job role and
what is expected at work place.
Employees have clear understanding of their job role and what is expected at work
place
PERCENTAGE
100
60
23.2
9.6
3.2 4

Agree disagree
Chart No. 12
28
Table No. 13
Superior or someone at work seems to care about employees as a person

Agree 29 23.2
Neutral 12 9.6
Disagree 11 8.8
Total 125 100.0
Inference
agree that they are being taken care by their superior or someone at work place.
Superior or someone at work seems to care about employees as a person
PERCENTAGE
100
55.2
23.2
9.6 8.8
3.2

Agree disagree
Chart No. 13
29
Table No. 14
Employees can place their problem or feedback to their superior without any hesitation

Agree 32 25.6
Neutral 12 9.6
Disagree 16 12.8
Total 125 100.0
Inference
respondents strongly agree that their employees can place their problem or feedback to their
superior without any hesitation.
Employees can place their problem or feedback to their superior without any hesitation
PERCENTAGE
100
48.8
25.6
12.8
9.6
3.2

Agree disagree
Chart No. 14
30
Table No. 15
Organization provides enough information, equipment and resources to do job well

Agree 34 27.2
Neutral 26 20.8
Disagree 18 14.4
Total 125 100.0
Inference
agree that organization provides enough information, equipment, and resources to do their job
well.
Organization provides enough information, equipment, and resources to do job well
PERCENTAGE
100
32.8
27.2
20.8
14.4
4.8
Strongly agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Total

Agree disagree
Chart No. 15
31
Table No. 16
Employee’s growth is enhanced in the organization and getting encouragements from
the superiors

Agree 31 24.8
Neutral 26 20.8
Disagree 10 8
Total 125 100.0
Inference
agree, 20.8 percentage of the respondents slightly agree, 8 percentage of the respondents have
respondents strongly agree that their growth is enhanced in the organization and getting
encouragements from the superiors.
Employee’s growing in the organization and getting encouragements from the superiors
PERCENTAGE
100
44.8
24.8
20.8
8
1.6

Agree disagree
Chart No. 16
32
Table No. 17
Respondents’ peers are committed to do quality work

Agree 46 36.8
Neutral 19 15.2
Disagree 4 3.2
Total 125 100.0
Inference
agree that their peers are committed to do quality work.
Respondents associates (fellow employees) committed to doing quality work
PERCENTAGE
100
43.2
36.8
15.2
3.2 1.6

Agree disagree
Chart No. 17
33
Table No.18
Employee’s future growth opportunities seem to be good in this company

Agree 28 22.4
Neutral 21 16.8
Disagree 13 10.4
Total 125 100.0
Inference
agree that their future growth opportunities seem to be good in the company.
Employee’s future growth opportunities seem to be good in this company
PERCENTAGE
100
47.2
22.4
16.8
10.4
3.2

Agree disagree
Chart No. 18
34
Table No. 19
In order to help this company, succeed employee is always willing to put efforts beyond
their normal requirements.

Agree 34 27.2
Neutral 4 3.2
Total 125 100.0

Inference
percentage of the respondents have given neutral answer and 79.6 percentage of the
respondents strongly agree that they are always willing to put efforts beyond their normal
requirements for the success of the company’s goal.
In order to help this company, succeed employee is always willing to put efforts beyond
their normal requirements.
PERCENTAGE
100
79.6
27.2
3.2
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Total
Chart No. 19
35
Table No. 20
Employee’s receive adequate recognition (beyond compensation) for their
contributions/ efforts are fair and transparent.

Agree 35 28.0
Neutral 25 20.0
Disagree 12 9.6
Total 125 100.0

Inference
respondents strongly agree that they receive adequate recognition (beyond compensation) for
their contributions / efforts are fair and transparent.
Employee’s receive adequate recognition (beyond compensation) for their

contributions/ efforts are fair and transparent.
PERCENTAGE
100
40
28
20
9.6
2.4

Agree disagree
Chart No. 20
36
Table No. 21
Employee’s feel their job is secure, if they perform well in the company

Agree 39 31.2
Neutral 10 8.0
Disagree 7 5.6
Total 125 100.0
Inference
respondents strongly agree that they job is secure as long as they perform well in the company.
Employee’s feel their job is secure in the company, as long as they perform well
PERCENTAGE
100
53.6
31.2
8 5.6
1.6

Agree disagree
Chart No. 21
37
Table No. 22
Tests of Normality
Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk
Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
My Work place (e.g.,

Lighting, work station etc) .236 125 .000 .811 125 .000
makes me work efficiently
I am working in a secure
environment. My plant is .254 125 .000 .799 125 .000
Welfare facilities such as
Transportation, Pantry,
Health check-up, safety .204 125 .000 .887 125 .000
equipment, adequately
provided and useful to me.
I have clear understanding
of my job role and I know
.343 125 .000 .685 125 .000
what is expected from me at
work place
My immediate superior or
someone at work seems to .318 125 .000 .736 125 .000
care about me as a person
I think that I can place my
problem or feedback to my
.280 125 .000 .776 125 .000
superior without any
hesitation
My organization provides
enough information,
.202 125 .000 .868 125 .000
equipment and resources I
need to do my job well
I find myself growing in the
organization and getting
.267 125 .000 .817 125 .000
encouragements from the
superiors
My associates (fellow
employees) are committed .251 125 .000 .799 125 .000
to doing quality work
My future growth
opportunities seem to be .277 125 .000 .801 125 .000
38
In order to help this
company, succeed I am
always willing to put efforts .430 125 .000 .620 125 .000
beyond my normal
requirements
I receive adequate
recognition (beyond
compensation) for my .234 125 .000 .837 125 .000
contributions/ efforts are fair
and transparent
I feel my job is secure in the
company, as long as I .307 125 .000 .732 125 .000
perform well
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
Here we see the p-value provided by SPSS (quoted under Sig. for Kolmogorov-Smirnov) is
.00 (reported as p < .001) and the significance value is below 0.05 (quoted under Sig. Shapiro-
Wilk) so we can conclude that the data significantly deviate from a normal distribution.
39
CROSS TABULATION
Table No. 23
Marital Status * I have been able to draw a balance between my job and
personal life. Cross tabulation
Count
I have been able to draw a balance
between my job and personal life.
Yes No Total
Marital Status Married 45 38 83

Un-Married 31 11 42
Total 76 49 125
Chi-Square Tests
Value Df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 4.492a 1 .034
1H0: There is no association between marital Status and the employees’ ability to draw
a balance between their job and personal life.
1H1: There is association between marital Status and the employees’ ability to draw a
balance between their job and personal life.
Inference
 From the above table, it is inferred that, firstly, 45 of the respondents who are married have
been able to draw a balance between their job and personal life.
 31 of the respondents who are unmarried have been able to draw a balance between their
job and personal life.
 38 of the respondents who are married have not been able to draw a balance between their
job and personal life.
 11 of the respondents who are unmarried have not been able to draw a balance between
their job and personal life
The P value = 0.034 < 0.05 (5%) shows that there is association between marital status and
the employees’ ability to draw a balance between their job and personal life. Hence H0
is not supported. We accept H1
40
Table No. 24
Age * The reason for you to join in this organization
Crosstabulation
Count
The reason for you to join in this organization
Welfare Company Career Salary

Schemes reputation advancement advancement Total
Age 18-25 6 2 5 3 16
26-30 8 7 11 5 31
31-35 2 8 6 4 20
36-40 0 9 6 9 24
41-50 3 7 10 4 24
Above 50 2 1 4 3 10
Total 21 34 42 28 125
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value Df sided)

Likelihood Ratio 23.233 15 .079
Linear-by-Linear Association 3.185 1 .074
N of Valid Cases 125
a. 11 cells (45.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is 1.68.
2H0: There is no association between age and the reason for the employees to join in this
organization.
2H1: There is association between age and the reason for the employees to join in this
organization.
Inference
 From the above table, it is inferred that, firstly, 5 of the respondents between 18 and 25
years have given carrier advancements the reason for employees to join in this organization.
 11 of the respondents between 26 and 30 years have given career advancement is the reason
for employees to join in this organization.
 6 of the respondents between 31 and 35 years have given carrier advancement is the reason
41
 4 of the respondents above 50 years have given carrier advancement is the reason for
employees to join in this organization.
The P value = 0.162 > 0.05 (5%) shows there is no association between age and the reason
for the employees to join in this organization. Hence H1 is not supported. We accept H0.
Table No. 25
Gender * The reason for you to join in this organization Crosstabulation

Count
The reason for you to join in this organization
Welfare Company Career Salary

Schemes reputation advancement advancement Total
Gender Female 2 2 6 3 13
Male 19 32 36 25 112
Total 21 34 42 28 125
Chi-Square Tests
Asymp. Sig. (2-
Value Df sided)

Likelihood Ratio 1.507 3 .681
Linear-by-Linear Association .331 1 .565
N of Valid Cases 125
a. 4 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum

expected count is 2.18.
3H0: There is no association between gender and the reason for the employees to join in
this organization.
3H1: There is association between gender and the reason for the employees to join in this
organization.
42
Inference
 From the above table, it is inferred that, firstly, 6 of female respondents have given carrier
advancements the reason for them to join in this organization.
 36 of male respondents between have given career advancement is the reason for them to
join in this organization.
 2 of female respondents have given welfare scheme as the reason for them to join in this
organization.
 19 of male respondents have given welfare scheme as the reason for them to join in this
organization
 2 of female respondents have given company reputation as the reason for them to join in
this organization
 32 of male respondents have given company reputation as the reason for them to join in
this organization
 3 of female respondents have given salary advancement as the reason for them to join in
this organization
 25 of male respondents have given salary advancement as the reason for them to join in
this organization
The P value = 0.695 > 0.05 (5%) which shows that there is no association between gender
and the reason for the employees to join in this organization. Hence H1 is not
supported. We accept H0.
43
Table No. 26
Correlations
Gend EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE
er 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Spearma Correlat
-
n's rho Gend ion .02 .04 .13 .20 .25 .09 .20 .08 .19 .23 .27 .17
1.000 .03
er Coeffici 5 5 9 1* 6** 1 3* 1 3* 2** 1** 3
7
ent
Sig. (2- .78 .61 .68 .12 .02 .00 .31 .02 .37 .03 .00 .00 .05
.
tailed) 5 9 2 1 5 4 3 3 1 1 9 2 4
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE1 Correlat
-
ion 1.0 .29 .25 .17 .21 .28 .34 .23 .33 .15 .27 .25
.02
Coeffici 00 0** 1** 1 5* 4** 3** 4** 7** 9 4** 4**
7
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .76 .00 .05 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .00 .00
.
tailed) 1 4 5 7 6 1 0 8 0 6 2 4
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE2 Correlat
-
ion 1.0 .22 .26 .25 .33 .26 .24 .27 .03 .33 .18
.06
Coeffici 00 7* 2** 3** 4** 7** 8** 2** 8 3** 5*
1
ent
Sig. (2- .49 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .67 .00 .03
.
tailed) 7 1 3 4 0 3 5 2 1 0 9
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE3 Correlat
- - - - - -
ion 1.0 .04 .01 .03 .01
.08 .08 .07 .21 .13 .09
Coeffici 00 9 5 0 0
2 6 6 7* 5 6
ent
Sig. (2- .58 .87 .36 .34 .39 .01 .73 .13 .91 .28
.
tailed) 4 0 5 0 9 5 9 3 2 9
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE4 Correlat
ion 1.0 .49 .38 .31 .40 .36 .46 .25 .42 .57
Coeffici 00 2** 1** 5** 2** 3** 6** 1** 8** 2**
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
.
tailed) 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
44
EE5 Correlat
ion 1.0 .60 .26 .40 .27 .34 .24 .55 .56
Coeffici 00 3** 6** 5** 9** 6** 0** 8** 2**
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
.
tailed) 0 3 0 2 0 7 0 0
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE6 Correlat
ion 1.0 .47 .63 .25 .40 .17 .62 .55
Coeffici 00 9** 4** 8** 0** 6* 0** 4**
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .00 .00 .00 .04 .00 .00

.
tailed) 0 0 4 0 9 0 0
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE7 Correlat
-
ion 1.0 .56 .26 .36 .45 .40
.00
Coeffici 00 1** 1** 5** 1** 7**
2
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .00 .00 .98 .00 .00

.
tailed) 0 3 0 0 0 0
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE8 Correlat
ion 1.0 .40 .52 .22 .59 .43
Coeffici 00 9** 5** 2* 3** 4**
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .00 .01 .00 .00

.
tailed) 0 0 3 0 0
N 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE9 Correlat
ion 1.0 .38 .20 .40 .26
Coeffici 00 4** 9* 6** 9**
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .01 .00 .00

.
tailed) 0 9 0 2
N 125 125 125 125 125
EE10 Correlat
ion 1.0 .15 .57 .38
Coeffici 00 4 8** 5**
ent
Sig. (2- .08 .00 .00
.
tailed) 6 0 0
45
N 125 125 125 125
EE11 Correlat
ion 1.0 .25 .29
Coeffici 00 0** 6**
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .00

.
tailed) 5 1
N 125 125 125
EE12 Correlat
ion 1.0 .48
Coeffici 00 0**
ent
Sig. (2- .00
.
tailed) 0
N 125 125
EE13 Correlat
ion 1.0
Coeffici 00
ent
Sig. (2-
.
tailed)
N 125
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
4H0: There is no correlation between gender and the various factors of employee
engagement
4H1: There is correlation between gender and the various factors of employee
engagement
Inference:
There is a positive correlation between gender and employee engagement factors like how the
employees’ immediate superior cares (E5), their ability to place feedback to their superior
without any hesitation (E6), encouragements from the superiors (E8), future growth
opportunities in the company (E10) their will to put efforts beyond normal requirements (E11),
adequate recognition (beyond compensation) for their contributions (E12), and job security.
46
Hence hypothesis 4H1 is accepted for above mentioned factors. Whereas gender has no
correlation with employee engagement factors like work place lighting, work station etc that
makes employees work efficiently (E1) , work place safety and security (E2) , welfare facilities
such as transportation, pantry, health check-up, safety equipment, that are adequately provided
and useful to employees (E3), clear understanding of job role (E4) information, equipment, and
resources provided by organisation (E7) , How the fellow employees are committed to doing
quality work (E9), and job security (E13). Hence hypothesis 4H1 is not accepted for above
mentioned factors.
47
Table No. 27
Correlations
Work
Experie EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE EE
nce 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Spearm Work Correla

- - - - - - - - -
an's rho Experie tion .03 .06 .06 .11
1.000 .03 .20 .14 .04 .10 .09 .21 .10 .04
nce Coeffici 2 9 5 8
1 6* 4 3 3 4 1* 0 3
ent
Sig. (2- .72 .02 .10 .63 .25 .29 .01 .72 .44 .47 .18 .26 .63
.
tailed) 9 1 8 1 3 8 8 5 7 3 9 6 5
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE1 Correla
-
tion 1.0 .29 .25 .17 .21 .28 .34 .23 .33 .15 .27 .25
-.031 .02
Coeffici 00 0** 1** 1 5* 4** 3** 4** 7** 9 4** 4**
7
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .76 .00 .05 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .07 .00 .00
.729 .
tailed) 1 4 5 7 6 1 0 8 0 6 2 4
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE2 Correla
-
tion .29 1.0 .22 .26 .25 .33 .26 .24 .27 .03 .33 .18
-.206* .06
Coeffici 0** 00 7* 2** 3** 4** 7** 8** 2** 8 3** 5*
1
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .49 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .67 .00 .03
.021 .
tailed) 1 7 1 3 4 0 3 5 2 1 0 9
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE3 Correla
- - - - - - - -
tion 1.0 .04 .01 .03 .01
-.144 .02 .06 .08 .08 .07 .21 .13 .09
Coeffici 00 9 5 0 0
7 1 2 6 6 7* 5 6
ent
Sig. (2- .76 .49 .58 .87 .36 .34 .39 .01 .73 .13 .91 .28
.108 .
tailed) 4 7 4 0 5 0 9 5 9 3 2 9
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE4 Correla
tion .25 .22 .04 1.0 .49 .38 .31 .40 .36 .46 .25 .42 .57
-.043
Coeffici 1** 7* 9 00 2** 1** 5** 2** 3** 6** 1** 8** 2**
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .01 .58 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
.631 .
tailed) 5 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
48
EE5 Correla
tion .17 .26 .01 .49 1.0 .60 .26 .40 .27 .34 .24 .55 .56
-.103
Coeffici 1 2** 5 2** 00 3** 6** 5** 9** 6** 0** 8** 2**
ent
Sig. (2- .05 .00 .87 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
.253 .
tailed) 7 3 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 7 0 0
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE6 Correla
-
tion .21 .25 .38 .60 1.0 .47 .63 .25 .40 .17 .62 .55
-.094 .08
Coeffici 5* 3** 1** 3** 00 9** 4** 8** 0** 6* 0** 4**
2
ent
Sig. (2- .01 .00 .36 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .04 .00 .00
.298 .
tailed) 6 4 5 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 0 0
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE7 Correla
- -
tion .28 .33 .31 .26 .47 1.0 .56 .26 .36 .45 .40
-.211* .08 .00
Coeffici 4** 4** 5** 6** 9** 00 1** 1** 5** 1** 7**
6 2
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .00 .34 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .98 .00 .00
.018 .
tailed) 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE8 Correla
-
tion .34 .26 .40 .40 .63 .56 1.0 .40 .52 .22 .59 .43
.032 .07
Coeffici 3** 7** 2** 5** 4** 1** 00 9** 5** 2* 3** 4**
6
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .00 .39 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 .00
.725 .
tailed) 0 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE9 Correla
-
tion .23 .24 .36 .27 .25 .26 .40 1.0 .38 .20 .40 .26
.069 .21
Coeffici 4** 8** 3** 9** 8** 1** 9** 00 4** 9* 6** 9**
7*
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .01 .00 .00
.447 .
tailed) 8 5 5 0 2 4 3 0 0 9 0 2
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE10 Correla
tion .33 .27 .03 .46 .34 .40 .36 .52 .38 1.0 .15 .57 .38
.065
Coeffici 7** 2** 0 6** 6** 0** 5** 5** 4** 00 4 8** 5**
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .00 .73 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .08 .00 .00
.473 .
tailed) 0 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0
49
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE11 Correla
- -
tion .15 .03 .25 .24 .17 .22 .20 .15 1.0 .25 .29
.118 .13 .00
Coeffici 9 8 1** 0** 6* 2* 9* 4 00 0** 6**
5 2
ent
Sig. (2- .07 .67 .13 .00 .00 .04 .98 .01 .01 .08 .00 .00
.189 .
tailed) 6 1 3 5 7 9 0 3 9 6 5 1
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE12 Correla
tion .27 .33 .01 .42 .55 .62 .45 .59 .40 .57 .25 1.0 .48
-.100
Coeffici 4** 3** 0 8** 8** 0** 1** 3** 6** 8** 0** 00 0**
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .00 .91 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
.266 .
tailed) 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
EE13 Correla
-
tion .25 .18 .57 .56 .55 .40 .43 .26 .38 .29 .48 1.0
-.043 .09
Coeffici 4** 5* 2** 2** 4** 7** 4** 9** 5** 6** 0** 00
6
ent
Sig. (2- .00 .03 .28 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00
.635 .
tailed) 4 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0
N 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
5H0: There is no correlation between work experience and the various factors of
employee engagement
5H1: There is correlation between work experience and the various factors of employee
engagement
Inference:
There is a negative correlation between work experience and employee engagement factors like
safety and security of workspace (E2) and how well the organization provides information,
equipment, and resources needed to do my job well (E7). While there is no any correlation
between other factors of employee engagement. Hence 5H1 is accepted for the above-
mentioned factors. Whereas there is no significant correlation between work experience and
the various factors of employee engagement like work place lighting, work station etc that
makes employees work efficiently (E1) , wo, welfare facilities such as transportation, pantry,
50
health check-up, safety equipment, that are adequately provided and useful to employees (E3),
clear understanding of job role (E4) how the employees’ immediate superior cares (E5), their
ability to place feedback to their superior without any hesitation (E6), encouragements from
the superiors (E8), future growth opportunities in the company (E10) their will to put efforts
beyond normal requirements (E11), adequate recognition (beyond compensation) for their
contributions (E12), and job security. Hence hypothesis 4H1 is accepted for above mentioned
factors, how well the fellow employees are committed to doing quality work (E9), and job
security (E13). Hence hypothesis 5H1 is not accepted for above mentioned factors.
51
CHAPTER V
FINDINGS
 24.8 per cent of respondents are between the age group 26 and 30 years.
 89.6 per cent of the respondents are male.
 47.2 per cent of the respondents are degree holders.
 66.4 per cent of the respondents are married people.
 43.2 per cent of the respondents possess 2 to 5 years.
 33.6 per cent of the respondents’ reason to join Same Deutz Fahr Private Limited is their
career advancement.
 32.8 per cent of the respondents said Illness for taking leave
 60.8 per cent of the respondents can balance between job and personal life.
 39.2 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that their work place makes the employee’s
work efficiently.
 40.0 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that they are working in a secure
environment and their plant is safe and secure to work also.
 33.6 per cent of the respondents agree that the welfare facilities provided to them are useful.
 60.0 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that their employees have clear
understanding of their job role and what is expected at work place.
 55.2 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that they are being taken care by their
superior or someone at work place
 48.8 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that their employees can place their problem
or feedback to their superior without any hesitation.
 32.8 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that organization provides enough
information, equipment, and resources to do their job well.
 44.8 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that their growth is enhanced in the
organization and getting encouragements from the superiors.
 43.2 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that their peers are committed to do quality
work.
 47.2 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that their future growth opportunities seem
to be good in the company.
 79.6 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that they are always willing to put efforts
beyond their normal requirements for the success of the company’s goal.
 40.0 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that they receive adequate recognition
(beyond compensation) for their contributions / efforts are fair and transparent.
52
 53.6 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that they job is secure if they perform well
in the company.
 38 of the respondents who are married have not been able to draw a balance between their
job and personal life.
 11 of the respondents between 26 and 30 years have given career advancement is the reason
for employees to join in this organization.
 36 of male respondents between have given career advancement is the reason for them to
join in this organization
 3 of female respondents have given salary advancement as the reason for them to join in
this organization
 There is a positive correlation between gender and employee engagement factors like how
the employees’ immediate superior cares (E5), their ability to place feedback to their
superior without any hesitation (E6), encouragements from the superiors (E8), future
growth opportunities in the company (E10) their will to put efforts beyond normal
requirements (E11), adequate recognition (beyond compensation) for their contributions
(E12), and job security.
 There is a negative correlation between work experience and employee engagement factors
like safety and security of workspace (E2) and how well the organization provides
information, equipment, and resources needed to do my job well. While there is no any
correlation between other factors of employee engagement. Hence H1 is not supported.
We accept H0. There is no significant correlation between work experience and the various
factors of employee engagement
53
SUGGESTIONS
 Since only 32. 8 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that organization provides
enough information, equipment, and resources to do their job well, measures could be taken
to just know their adequate requirement of their needs by conducting a personal discussion
with each of the employees, in turn, implement the steps that fulfils their needs.
 Only 47. 2 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that their future growth opportunities
seem to be good in the company which this is the retention factor, which should be
considered and growth opportunities for the employees to be enhanced.
 79.6 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that they are always willing to put efforts
beyond their normal requirements for the success of the company’s goal. Hence, making
the employees to participate in the recreational activities for a particular interval of time,
would enhance their efficiency in work, in turn, the productivity of the employees
increases, in turn, the organizational goals are accomplished.
 60.8 per cent of the respondents are able balance between the job and personal life. To
maintain the work life balance of the employees, the organization could initiate for the
provision of paid holidays. This would make the employees distress from their work life
and create a balance also between the work life and personal life. This is a also a retention
measure to ensure the employees to get along with the journey of organization and stay
loyal.
 Only 44.8 per cent of the respondents strongly agree that their growth is enhanced in the
organization and getting encouragements from the superiors, so the inter personal
relationship between the white-collar employees and their superiors should be made
stronger in such a way that their interactions are always lively without any communication
gap.
 This study on the factors influencing the employee engagement are bound only to the white
collar employees of SDF. So, with the support from the industrial and research experts, a
study covering the entire employees of SDF paves the right path for the strategy
formulation that augments the engagement.
54
CONCLUSION
Employee engagement has yet to have a widely agreed definition. However, there is growing
agreement among the authors that the construct can be distinguished from related management
concepts like employee commitment, organizational citizenship behaviour, and job satisfaction
in a way that clearly reflects the two-way exchange of effort between employees and
employers.
In this research with the help of Gallup Q12 we evaluated the level of employee engagement
among white collar employees of Same Deutz Fahr, finally with all the findings out of the
percentage analysis it was concluded that the perception of the employees towards their
organization with regards to work engagement are in assenting terms which shows the positive
aspect of the organization and its relationship with its employees.
Literature shows correlation between organizational performance outcomes and employee

engagement. As a result of lower turnover, decreased intentions to leave the firm, increased
productivity, profitability, growth, and customer satisfaction, companies with engaged
employees have higher employee retention.
These outcomes portray the positive climate of the organization and its relationship with the
employees which is appreciable and the organization could reach greater heights in theindustry,
if few grooming measures are made in order to satisfy the employees expectations infew cases,
in turn, the life of employees in work place and personal would become prudent.
Future focus for research:
Given the lack of an agreed definition of employee engagement, future academic research
would be well served by a comprehensive review of current definitions with a view to
introducing a concise, understandable definition for future usage both by organisations and
researchers. Future research might also be better served by combining interviews with
quantitative survey tools in order to look at the individual in context. Another area for academic
research may be to investigate the correlation of engagement levels to profitability to prove or
disprove independently the claims of various consultancy firms.
55
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
 Bhatla, N. (2011), To study the employee engagement practices and its effecton employee
performance with special reference to ICICI and HDFC Bank in Lucknow. International
Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research, 2 (8),1-7.
 Larkin, E. (2009), The challenge of employee engagement. Retrieved from

http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4044076.html.
 Sharma, B. R., & Anupama, R. (2010), Determinants of employee engagement in a private

sector organization: An exploratory study. Advancesin Management, 3 (10), 52- 59.
 Khan, N. (2013), Human resource policies and practices in hospitality industryin India: A
case study of selected hotels. (Doctoral dissertation). Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.
 Kahn, W. A. (1990), Psychological conditions of personal engagement and

disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724. doi :
10.2307.256287
 Kumar, D. P., & Swetha, G. (2011), A prognostic examination of employee engagement

from its historical roots. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 2(3), 232
241.
 Saks, A.M. (2006), Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement.Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 21 (7), 600-619.
doi : 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2007.00005.x
 Bakkar, A.B., & Scheufeli, W.B. (2008), Positive organizational behavior : Engaged
employee in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 29, 147 – 154.
doi : 10.1002/job.515.
 Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (20040, The drivers of employeeengagement
(408). Brighton, UK: Institute for employment studies. Retrieved from
http://www.wellbeing4business.co.uk/docs/Article%20-
20%engagement%20 research.Pdf
 Baig, A. (2010). Human resource Management practices in Relianceindustries Ltd.

(Doctoral dissertation). Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh.

 Chandok, A., & Bhavet. (2014), Engagement and commitment: A study conducted in Delhi
and NCR with special reference to telecom industry. International Journal of Research in
Commerce, IT & Management. 4 (07), 5
-10. 51
 Garber, P. R. (2007). 50 activities for employee engagement. Amherst, Massachusetts:

HRD Press, Inc. Chanania, P (2012). Reaching out to employee‟s families. Opportunities,
The Hindu.1-4

56
 Kahn, W, A. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations,
45 (4), 321 – 349.
doi : 10.1177/001872679204500402.
 Basbous, O. K., (2011). Antecedents of employee engagement (Master‟s Thesis,

University Sains). Retrieved from
http://eprints.usm.my/26738/1/ANTECEDENTS_OF_EMPLOYEE_ENGAGEMENT.pdf
 Rasheed. A., Khan, S., & Ramzan, M. (2013). Antecedents and consequencesof employee
engagement : The case of Pakistan. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 4 (4), 183 –200.
 Markos, S., & Sridevi, M.S. (2010). Employee engagement : The key to improving
performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5 (12), 89 – 94.
 Bates S (2004). “Getting engaged”, HR Magazine, 49 (2): 44-51. Baumruk R(2004). "The
missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success", Workspan, . 47: 48-
52.
 Gubman E (2004). 'HR Strategy and Planning: From Birth to BusinessResults', HR.
Human. Resource. Planning., 27(1):13-24.
 Richman A (2006). "Everyone wants an engaged workforce; how can you create
it?",Workspan, 49: 36-39.
 Johnson Rebecca (2006). “Singular focus (employee engagement)", People Manage., 12

(18): 36-38.
 Kowalski B. (2003). "The engagement gap", Training, 40 (4): 62.
 Robinson D, Perryman S, Hayday S (2004). “The drivers of employee engagement”,

Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.
 Kahn WA (1990). "An exercise of authority", Organ. Behav. Teaching Rev., 14(2): 28-42.
 Kahn WA (1992). "Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement

at work", Acad. Manage. J., 33 (4): 692-724.52
 Rothbard NP (2001). "Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and

family roles", Admin. Sci. Q., 46: 655-684.
 Luthans F, Peterson SJ (2002). "Employee engagement and manager self efficacy:

implications for managerial effectiveness and development", J. Manage. Dev., 21 (5):376-
387.
 Schmidt F (2004). “Identifying the drivers of staff satisfaction and commitment in the
public sector” - updated version 2004 for the Public Service Human Resources
57
 Management Agency of Canada. Ottawa: PSHRMA. Available online at
http://www.hrma-agrh.gc.ca/hrrh/wlbpseeoppfps/documents/Engagement
 Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB (2004). "Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study", J. Organ. Behav., 25: 293-315.
 Luthans F, Peterson SJ (2002). "Employee engagement and manager self

efficacy:implications for managerial effectiveness and development", J. Manage. Dev., 21
(5): 376-387.
 Ferguson, A. (2007) Employee engagement: Does it exist, and if so, how doesit relate to
performance, other constructs and individual differences?Availableon:
http://www.lifethatworks.com/Employee- Engagement.prn.pdf
 Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004). „Job demands, job resources, and their
relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study‟, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 293-315
 Meere M. (2005). High cost of disengaged employees Victoria: Swinburne University

of Technology. Available
on:http://www.swinburne.edu.au/corporate/industrysolutions/ee/reports/
58
APPENDIX:
QUESTIONNAIRE:
PERSONAL DETAILS
1) Age
(a)18- 25; (b)26- 30; (c)31-35; (d)36- 40; (e)41-50; (f)Above 50
2) Gender
Female (b) Male
3) Education Qualification
ITI (b) Diploma (c) UG (d) PG
4) Marital status
(a)Married (b) Un-married
5) Experience in this organization.
0-2 years (b) 2-5 Years (c) 5 - 10 Years (d)10 years & above.
WORK RELATED DETAILS
1) The reason for you to join in this organization
(a)Welfare Schemes (b) Company reputation (C) Career advancement (d)Salary advancement
(e) others
2) I mostly take leave for this reason
(a)Family problem (b) Illness (c)Stress (d)Working condition (e)Others
3) I have been able to draw a balance between my job and personal life
(a)Yes (b) No
Factors Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly

Agree disagree
(EE1): My Work place (e.g.,
Lighting, work station etc.) makes
me work efficiently
59
(EE2): I am working in a secure
environment. My plant is safe &
secure to work
(EE3): Welfare facilities such as

Transportation, Pantry, Health
check-up, safety equipment,
adequately provided and useful to
me.
(EE4): I have clear understanding

of my job role and I know what is
expected from me at work place
(EE5): My immediate superior or

someone at work seems to care
about me as a person
(EE6): I think that I can place my

problem or feedback to my
superior without any hesitation
(EE7): My organization provides

enough information, equipment,
and resources I need to do my job
well
(EE8): I find myself growing in

the organization and getting
encouragements from the
superiors
(EE9): My associates (fellow

employees) committed to doing
quality work
(EE10): My future growth

opportunities seem to be good in
this company
(EE11): In order to help this

company, succeed I am always
willing to put efforts beyond my
normal requirements
(EE12): I receive adequate

recognition (beyond
60
compensation) for my
contributions/ efforts are fair and
transparent.
(EE13): I feel my job is secure in

the company, as long as I perform
well
61

SDF Final 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

SDF Final 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

SDF Final 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A STUDY ON THE FACTORS INFLUENCING EMPLOYEE

ENGAGEMENT WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Business Administration

Under the guidance of

VIT BUSINESS SCHOOL

Date : Signature of the Candidate

Place : Vellore Signature of the Guide

Internal Examiner External Examiner

Employee engagement is a relatively recent notion; Kahn first described it as "personal

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE NO

III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 14

IV DATA ANALYSIS & 17

S.NO PARTICULARS PG.NO

Work place makes the employees work efficiently 25

Respondents’ peers are committed to do quality work 33

Types of Employee’s work engagement:

Types of employee engagement are given in below:

Characteristics of Engaged employees

The factors which influence employee engagement are listed below:

1. Recruitment and selection

Drivers of Employee Engagement:

3. Synchronization of individual and organization’s performance – this driver is about

4. Career Growth Opportunities – Employees having a sense of career growth and

6. Co-workers/Team Members – Cooperative and supportive co-workers will drive up the

8. Line Manager Relationship - A good working relationship with one’s manager is an

LEVELS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT (EMPLOYEES):

BENEFITS OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT:

Ultimately, researchers endure to demonstrate a well-sustained relationship between business

NEED OF THE STUDY:

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

5H1 = There is association between work experience and various factor of

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

 There are risks for misrepresentation responses.

Bateset. al., (2004)

Bateset. al., (2004)

Robinson et al., (2004)

Kahn (1990, 1992)

Schaufeli et al. (2004)

Siddhanta and Roy (2010).

Schaufeli and Bakker (2004)

Omaha, NE, (2003).

Omaha, NE. (2001).

3. Research Instrument used - Gallup q12

4. Procedure adopted to collect the data

a.) Sample Design – Probability sampling- Stratified random sampling.

STATISTICAL TOOLS APPLIED

The data set were analysed using IBM SPSS Version 22

1. Frequency tabulations-for simple percentage analysis frequency tabulation was adopted.

5. Correlation: Spearman’s Correlation to analyse the relationship between age, marital

Source: Primary data

Age of the respondents

18-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 40-50 Above Total

Gender of the Respondents

Source: Primary data

Gender of the respondents

Female Male Total

Educational qualification of the Respondents